Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024997003 = product of:
  0.049994007 = sum of:
    0.049994007 = product of:
      0.09998801 = sum of:
        0.09998801 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09998801 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.0094314385 = product of:
  0.018862877 = sum of:
    0.018862877 = product of:
      0.037725754 = sum of:
        0.037725754 = weight(_text_:systems in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037725754 = score(doc=1198,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 1198, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To arrive at relevant and reliable conclusions concerning the usability of a hypermedia educational e-book, developers have to apply a well-defined evaluation procedure as well as a set of clear, concrete and measurable quality criteria. Evaluating an educational tool involves not only testing the user interface but also the didactic method, the instructional materials and the interaction mechanisms to prove whether or not they help users reach their goals for learning. This article presents a number of evaluation criteria for hypermedia educational e-books and describes how they are embedded into an evaluation procedure. This work is chiefly aimed at helping education developers evaluate their systems, as well as to provide them with guidance for addressing educational requirements during the design process. In recent years, more and more educational e-books are being created, whether by academics trying to keep pace with the advanced requirements of the virtual university or by publishers seeking to meet the increasing demand for educational resources that can be accessed anywhere and anytime, and that include multimedia information, hypertext links and powerful search and annotating mechanisms. To develop a useful educational e-book many things have to be considered, such as the reading patterns of users, accessibility for different types of users and computer platforms, copyright and legal issues, development of new business models and so on. Addressing usability is very important since e-books are interactive systems and, consequently, have to be designed with the needs of their users in mind. Evaluating usability involves analyzing whether systems are effective, efficient and secure for use; easy to learn and remember; and have a good utility. Any interactive system, as e-books are, has to be assessed to determine if it is really usable as well as useful. Such an evaluation is not only concerned with assessing the user interface but is also aimed at analyzing whether the system can be used in an efficient way to meet the needs of its users - who in the case of educational e-books are learners and teachers. Evaluation provides the opportunity to gather valuable information about design decisions. However, to be successful the evaluation has to be carefully planned and prepared so developers collect appropriate and reliable data from which to draw relevant conclusions.

0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.0070735784 = product of:
  0.014147157 = sum of:
    0.014147157 = product of:
      0.028294314 = sum of:
        0.028294314 = weight(_text_:systems in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028294314 = score(doc=1195,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.17643067 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As follow up, in 2002 the nestor long-term archiving working group provided an initial spark towards planning and organising coordinated activities concerning the long-term preservation and long-term availability of digital documents in Germany. This resulted in a workshop, held 29 - 30 October 2002, where major tasks were discussed. Influenced by the demands and progress of the nestor network, the participants reached agreement to start work on application-oriented projects and to address the following topics: * Overlapping problems o Collection and preservation of digital objects (selection criteria, preservation policy) o Definition of criteria for trusted repositories o Creation of models of cooperation, etc. * Digital objects production process o Analysis of potential conflicts between production and long-term preservation o Documentation of existing document models and recommendations for standards models to be used for long-term preservation o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. * Transfer of digital objects o Object data and metadata o Transfer protocols and interoperability o Handling of different document types, e.g. dynamic publications, etc. * Long-term preservation of digital objects o Design and prototype implementation of depot systems for digital objects (OAIS was chosen to be the best functional model.) o Authenticity o Functional requirements on user interfaces of an depot system o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. At the end of the workshop, participants decided to establish a permanent distributed infrastructure for long-term preservation and long-term accessibility of digital resources in Germany comparable, e.g., to the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK. The initial phase, nestor, is now being set up by the above-mentioned 3-year funding project.

0.0070702205 = product of:
  0.014140441 = sum of:
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028280882 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.0040839324 = product of:
  0.008167865 = sum of:
    0.008167865 = product of:
      0.01633573 = sum of:
        0.01633573 = weight(_text_:systems in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01633573 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1018623 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation linking is thus also a huge benefit to journal publishers, because, as with electronic bookselling, it drives readers to their content in yet another way. In step with what was largely a subscription-based economy for journal sales, an "article economy" appears to be emerging. Journal publishers sell an increasing amount of their content on an article basis, whether through document delivery services, aggregators, or their own pay-per-view systems. At the same time, most research-oriented access to digitized material is still mediated by libraries. Resource discovery services must be able to authenticate subscribed or licensed users somewhere in the process, and ensure that a given user is accessing as a default the version of an article that their library may have already paid for. The well-known "appropriate copy" issue is addressed below. Another benefit to publishers from including outgoing citation links is simply the value they can add to their own journals. Publishers carry out the bulk of the technological prototyping and development that has produced electronic journals and the enhanced functionality readers have come to expect. There is clearly competition among them to provide readers with the latest features. That a number of publishers would agree to collaborate in the establishment of an infrastructure for reference linking was thus by no means predictable. CrossRef was incorporated in January of 2000 as a collaborative venture among 12 of the world's top scientific and scholarly publishers, both commercial and not-for-profit, to enable cross-publisher reference linking throughout the digital journal literature. The founding members were Academic Press, a Harcourt Company; the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of Science); American Institute of Physics (AIP); Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); Blackwell Science; Elsevier Science; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE); Kluwer Academic Publishers (a Wolters Kluwer Company); Nature; Oxford University Press; Springer-Verlag; and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Start-up funds for CrossRef were provided as loans from eight of the original publishers.