Search (23 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Large, A."
  1. Cole, C.; Beheshti, J.; Leide, J. E.; Large, A.: Interactive information retrieval : bringing the user to a selection state (2005) 0.00
    0.0023673228 = product of:
      0.007101968 = sum of:
        0.007101968 = product of:
          0.014203936 = sum of:
            0.014203936 = weight(_text_:of in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014203936 = score(doc=36,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.20732687 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    There have been various approaches to conceptualizing interactive information retrieval (IR), which can be generally divided into system and user approaches (Hearst, 1999; cf. also Spink, 1997). Both system and user approaches define user-system interaction in terms of the system and the user reacting to the actions or behaviors of the other: the system reacts to the user's input; the user to the output of the system (Spink, 1997). In system approach models of the interaction, e.g., Moran (1981), "[T]he user initiates an action or operation and the system responds in some way which in turn leads the user to initiate another action and so on" (Beaulieu, 2000, p. 433). In its purest form, the system approach models the user as a reactive part of the interaction, with the system taking the lead (Bates, 1990). User approaches, on the other hand, in their purest form wish to insert a model of the user in all its socio-cognitive dimensions, to the extent that system designers consider such approaches impractical (Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005, Chap. 7, this volume). The cognitive approach to IR interaction attempts to overcome this divide (Ruthven, 2005, Chap. 4, this volume; Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005 Chap. 7, this volume) by representing the cognitive elements of both system designers and the user in the interaction model (Larsen and Ingwersen, 2005 Chap. 3, this volume). There are cognitive approach researchers meeting in a central ground from both the system and user side. On the system side, are computer scientists employing cognitive research to design more effective IR systems from the point of view of the user's task (Nathan, 1990; Fischer, Henninger, and Redmiles, 1991; O'Day and Jeffries, 1993; Russell et al., 1993; Kitajima and Polson, 1996; Terwilliger and Polson, 1997). On the user side are cognitive approach researchers applying methods, concepts and models from psychology to design systems that are more in tune with how users acquire information (e.g., Belkin, 1980; Ford (2005, Chap. 5, this volume); Ingwersen (Larsen and Ingwersen, 2005, Chap. 3, this volume); Saracevic, 1996; Vakkari (Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005, Chap. 7, this volume)).
  2. Large, A.: ¬The user interface to CD-ROM databases (1991) 0.00
    0.0022319334 = product of:
      0.0066958 = sum of:
        0.0066958 = product of:
          0.0133916 = sum of:
            0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0133916 = score(doc=3840,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Discusses CD-ROM user interfaces of specific types: dialogue transaction (command languages; command menus; direct manipulation and natural language); input devices (keyload, mouse, touch screen and voice); display features (layout, colour, sound and response time); user assistance (error messages, on-screen help tutorials and manuals); and reliabiliy and robustness
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 23(1991) no.4, S.203-217
  3. Large, A.; Beheshti, J.; Breuleux, A.: Multimedia and comprehension : a cognitive study (1994) 0.00
    0.0020501618 = product of:
      0.006150485 = sum of:
        0.006150485 = product of:
          0.01230097 = sum of:
            0.01230097 = weight(_text_:of in 7754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01230097 = score(doc=7754,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 7754, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7754)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Tests were carried out on 120 grade 6 students to compare Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia on CD-ROM and its printe equivalent in terms of students' ability to recall information and to draw inferences from it. Between-subject varaibles were 3 presentation conditions (printed text with illustrations, text-on-screen, and multimedia-text, still images, and animation) and a retrieval condition (topic retrieved before viewing / topic presented without retrieval). Within-subject variables were text complexity (complex or simple), text type (descriptive or procedural), and measure (propositions recalled versus propositions inferred). Presentation conditions produced no significant main effect although text-on-screen resulted in somewhat higher recall and multimedia resulted in somewhat higher inference scores. Multimedia had the greatest effect in the case of simple topics, and especially the simple procedural topic
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.7, S.515-528