Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Toms, E.G."
  1. Dufour, C.; Bartlett, J.C.; Toms, E.G.: Understanding how webcasts are used as sources of information (2011) 0.04 
    0.041254148 = product of:
  0.082508296 = sum of:
    0.082508296 = sum of:
      0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047157194 = score(doc=4195,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Webcasting systems were developed to provide remote access in real-time to live events. Today, these systems have an additional requirement: to accommodate the "second life" of webcasts as archival information objects. Research to date has focused on facilitating the production and storage of webcasts as well as the development of more interactive and collaborative multimedia tools to support the event, but research has not examined how people interact with a webcasting system to access and use the contents of those archived events. Using an experimental design, this study examined how 16 typical users interact with a webcasting system to respond to a set of information tasks: selecting a webcast, searching for specific information, and making a gist of a webcast. Using several data sources that included user actions, user perceptions, and user explanations of their actions and decisions, the study also examined the strategies employed to complete the tasks. The results revealed distinctive system-use patterns for each task and provided insights into the types of tools needed to make webcasting systems better suited for also using the webcasts as information objects.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:16:14
  2. Toms, E.G.: What motivates the browser? (1999) 0.03 
    0.025030928 = product of:
  0.050061855 = sum of:
    0.050061855 = sum of:
      0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021780973 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028280882 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Browsing is considered to be unstructured and human-driven, although not a cognitively intensive process. It is conducted using systems that facilitate considerable user-system interactivity. Cued by the content, people immerse themselves in a topic of interest and meander from topic to topic while concurrently recognising interesting and informative information en route. They seem to seek and gather information in a purposeless, illogical and indiscriminate manner. Typical examples of these ostensibly random acts are scanning a non-fiction book, examining the morning newspaper, perusing the contents of a business report and scavenging the World Wide Web. Often the result is the acquisition of new information, the rejection or confirmation of an idea, or the genesis of new, perhaps not-wholly-formed thoughts about a topic. Noteworthy about this approach is that people explore information without having consciously structured queries or explicit goals. This form of passive information interaction behaviour is defined as acquiring and gathering information while scanning an information space without a specific goal in mind (Waterworth & Chignell, 1991; Toms, 1997), and for the purposes of this study, is called browsing. Traditionally, browsing is thought of in two ways: as a physical process - the action taken when one scans a list, a document, or a set of linked information nodes (e.g., Fox & Palay, 1979; Thompson & Croft, 1989; Ellis, 1989), and as a conceptual process, information seeking when the goal is ill-defined (e.g., Cove & Walsh, 1987). Browsing is also combined with searching in an integrated information-seeking process for retrieving information (e.g., Ellis, 1989; Belkin, Marchetti & Cool, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Chang, 1995). Each of these cases focuses primarily on seeking information when the objective ranges from fuzzy to explicit.
    Date
    22. 3.2002 9:44:47
  3. Toms, E.G.: User-centered design of information systems (2009) 0.02 
    0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 3900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=3900,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 3900, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    User-centered design (UCD) emerged a couple of decades ago because people had difficulties in using systems. It is founded on the principle that users need to be involved in the design and development process for systems to be truly usable-efficient, effective, and satisfying. This entry provides an account of the background-the technological and social forces that affect the evolution of systems development, an explanation of the theoretical foundation on which UCD is build, and a description of a typical UCD process.
  4. Toms, E.G.: Free-Neets : delivering information to the community (1994) 0.02 
    0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=579,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Computer-based systems are increasingly used by society for everyday activities. Yet these systems are rarely exploited to meet personal information needs. One development that may change this imbalance is the community online system. This paper examines one type of community online system, the Free-Net, and discusses its usefulness in delivering the information and services typically provided by community information centers
  5. Toms, E.G.: Information interaction : providing a framework for information architcture (2002) 0.01 
    0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=1013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Information interaction is the process that people use in interacting with the content of an information system. Information architecture is a blueprint and navigational aid to the content of information-rich systems. As such information architecture performs an important supporting rote in information interactivity. This article elaborates an a model of information interactivity that crosses the "no-man's land" between user and computer articulating a model that includes user, content and system, illustrating the context for information architecture.
  6. Bartlett, J.C.; Toms, E.G.: Developing a protocol for bioinformatics analysis : an integrated information behavior and task analysis approach (2005) 0.01 
    0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=5256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 14:28:55
  7. O'Brien, H.L.; Toms, E.G.: What is user engagement? : a conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology (2008) 0.01 
    0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    21. 3.2008 13:39:22
  8. Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014) 0.01 
    0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 4.2015 19:31:22
  9. Toms, E.G.; Kinnucan, M.T.: ¬The effectiveness of the electronic city metaphor for organizing the menus of free-nets (1996) 0.01 
    0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 6505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=6505,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 6505, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Metaphors are used in the design of systems to ameliorate complxities, to exploit prior knowledge, and to enhace the user's understanding of the system. In this study, we examined the electronic city metaphor adopted by Free-Nets, the average citizen's medium for accessing electronic community information. The electronic city metaphor represents a categorized set of menus as buildings in a mythical city. To examnie this metaphor, we compared the performance of 2 groups of university student subjects who used a simulated Free-Net to find answers to simple factual questions. One group used an interface that embodied the electronic city metaphor, while the other group used an interface with labels composed from everyday language. Subjects used the simulated Free-Net in 2 sessions, about a week apart. Results were assessed using 3 performance measures: Number of top-level menu choices used, number of correct answers, and amout of time taken to respond to questions. Preference ratings were also obtained. Results indicated that both groups performed about equally in the first session, but that only the subjects who used the everyday language menu showed a learning effect over time. Subjects in both groups expressed a definite preference for the non-metaphor interface. The results raise questions about the utility of this type of metaphor, especially to represent categorized lists
  10. O'Brien, H.L.; Toms, E.G.: ¬The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement (2010) 0.01 
    0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Facilitating engaging user experiences is essential in the design of interactive systems. To accomplish this, it is necessary to understand the composition of this construct and how to evaluate it. Building on previous work that posited a theory of engagement and identified a core set of attributes that operationalized this construct, we constructed and evaluated a multidimensional scale to measure user engagement. In this paper we describe the development of the scale, as well as two large-scale studies (N=440 and N=802) that were undertaken to assess its reliability and validity in online shopping environments. In the first we used Reliability Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis to identify six attributes of engagement: Perceived Usability, Aesthetics, Focused Attention, Felt Involvement, Novelty, and Endurability. In the second we tested the validity of and relationships among those attributes using Structural Equation Modeling. The result of this research is a multidimensional scale that may be used to test the engagement of software applications. In addition, findings indicate that attributes of engagement are highly intertwined, a complex interplay of user-system interaction variables. Notably, Perceived Usability played a mediating role in the relationship between Endurability and Novelty, Aesthetics, Felt Involvement, and Focused Attention.

Authors

Years

Themes