-
Dufour, C.; Bartlett, J.C.; Toms, E.G.: Understanding how webcasts are used as sources of information (2011)
0.02
0.020747647 = product of:
0.051869117 = sum of:
0.036783673 = weight(_text_:study in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036783673 = score(doc=4195,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.25401598 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
0.015085445 = product of:
0.03017089 = sum of:
0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03017089 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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
-
O'Brien, H.L.; Toms, E.G.: What is user engagement? : a conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology (2008)
0.02
0.016438173 = product of:
0.041095432 = sum of:
0.026009986 = weight(_text_:study in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026009986 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.17961644 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
0.015085445 = product of:
0.03017089 = sum of:
0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03017089 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this article is to critically deconstruct the term engagement as it applies to peoples' experiences with technology. Through an extensive, critical multidisciplinary literature review and exploratory study of users of Web searching, online shopping, Webcasting, and gaming applications, we conceptually and operationally defined engagement. Building on past research, we conducted semistructured interviews with the users of four applications to explore their perception of being engaged with the technology. Results indicate that engagement is a process comprised of four distinct stages: point of engagement, period of sustained engagement, disengagement, and reengagement. Furthermore, the process is characterized by attributes of engagement that pertain to the user, the system, and user-system interaction. We also found evidence of the factors that contribute to nonengagement. Emerging from this research is a definition of engagement - a term not defined consistently in past work - as a quality of user experience characterized by attributes of challenge, positive affect, endurability, aesthetic and sensory appeal, attention, feedback, variety/novelty, interactivity, and perceived user control. This exploratory work provides the foundation for future work to test the conceptual model in various application areas, and to develop methods to measure engaging user experiences.
- Date
- 21. 3.2008 13:39:22
-
Toms, E.G.: What motivates the browser? (1999)
0.01
0.013150537 = product of:
0.032876343 = sum of:
0.020807989 = weight(_text_:study in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020807989 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.14369315 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
0.012068355 = product of:
0.02413671 = sum of:
0.02413671 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02413671 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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
