Search (205 results, page 1 of 11)

0.05844656 = product of:
  0.13637531 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
    0.0847222 = weight(_text_:europe in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0847222 = score(doc=968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25178367 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
    0.025709787 = product of:
      0.051419575 = sum of:
        0.051419575 = weight(_text_:studies in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051419575 = score(doc=968,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The Web and especially major Web search engines are essential tools in the quest to locate online information for many people. This paper reports results from research that examines characteristics and changes in Web searching from nine studies of five Web search engines based in the US and Europe. We compare interactions occurring between users and Web search engines from the perspectives of session length, query length, query complexity, and content viewed among the Web search engines. The results of our research shows (1) users are viewing fewer result pages, (2) searchers on US-based Web search engines use more query operators than searchers on European-based search engines, (3) there are statistically significant differences in the use of Boolean operators and result pages viewed, and (4) one cannot necessary apply results from studies of one particular Web search engine to another Web search engine. The wide spread use of Web search engines, employment of simple queries, and decreased viewing of result pages may have resulted from algorithmic enhancements by Web search engine companies. We discuss the implications of the findings for the development of Web search engines and design of online content.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.248-263

0.05526792 = product of:
  0.19343771 = sum of:
    0.14980675 = weight(_text_:case in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14980675 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.8243277 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.043630954 = product of:
      0.08726191 = sum of:
        0.08726191 = weight(_text_:studies in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08726191 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

In depth case study of six students from high school through college

0.046094492 = product of:
  0.10755381 = sum of:
    0.020754656 = weight(_text_:management in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020754656 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
    0.03530979 = weight(_text_:case in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03530979 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
    0.05148936 = sum of:
      0.029087303 = weight(_text_:studies in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029087303 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
      0.02240206 = weight(_text_:22 in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02240206 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4440, 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=4440)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to get a first approximation of the usefulness of online forums with regard to information seeking and knowledge generation. Design/methodology/approach - This study captures the characteristics of knowledge generation by examining the pragmatics and types of information needs of posted questions and by investigating knowledge related characteristics of discussion posts as well as the success of communication. Three online forums were examined. The data set consists of 55 threads, containing 533 posts which were categorized manually by two researchers. Findings - Results show that questioners often ask for personal estimations. Information needs often aim for actionable insights or uncertainty reduction. With regard to answers, factual information is the dominant content type and has the highest knowledge value as it is the strongest predictor with regard to the generation of new knowledge. Opinions are also relevant, but in a rather subsequent and complementary way. Emotional aspects are scarcely observed. Overall, results indicate that knowledge creation predominantly follows a socio-cultural paradigm of knowledge exchange. Research limitations/implications - Although the investigation captures important aspects of knowledge building processes, the measurement of the forums' knowledge value is still rather limited. Success is only partly measurable with the current scheme. The central coding category "new topical knowledge" is only of nominal value and therefore not able to compare different kinds of knowledge gains in the course of discussion. Originality/value - The investigation reaches out beyond studies that do not consider that the role and relevance of posts is dependent on the state of the discussion. Furthermore, the paper integrates two perspectives of knowledge value: the success of the questioner with regard to the expressed information need and the knowledge building value for communicants and readers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.2-26

0.0365456 = product of:
  0.1279096 = sum of:
    0.063547894 = weight(_text_:management in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063547894 = score(doc=1003,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.45609936 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
    0.06436171 = sum of:
      0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03635913 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028002575 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.

0.03219855 = product of:
  0.11269492 = sum of:
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
    0.05090278 = product of:
      0.10180556 = sum of:
        0.10180556 = weight(_text_:studies in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10180556 = score(doc=2016,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.028032223 = product of:
  0.09811278 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Presents the selected findings of a research project based on the British Library Network Online Public Access Catalogue (NOPAC) carried out in the department of information and library management at the University of Northumbria in Newcastle, UK over the academic year 1994/95. Data was collected by means of interviews with NOPAC users especially on use made of the NOPAC and on attitudes towards the NOPAC's interface. Discusses the views of users as they relate to: display features; mode of interaction; help/user assistance; extra features available; and usability. Lists important points which emerged from the survey concerning the NOPAC service

0.027598757 = product of:
  0.096595645 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
    0.043630954 = product of:
      0.08726191 = sum of:
        0.08726191 = weight(_text_:studies in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08726191 = score(doc=1320,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

User studies provide libraries with invaluable insight into their users' information needs and behaviors, allowing them to develop services that correspond to these needs. This insight has become even more important for libraries since the advent of the Internet. The Internet has brought about a development of information technologies and electronic information sources that have had a great impact on both the ways users search for information and the ways libraries manage information. Although humanists represent an important group of users for academic libraries, research studies into their information-seeking behavior since the advent of the Internet have been quite scarce (Ellis & Oldman, 2005) in the past decade. This study presents updated research on a group of humanists, Jewish studies scholars living in Israel, as information users in the digital age based on two categories: (a) the use of formal and informal information channels, and (b) the use of information technologies and their impact on humanistic research.

0.026577614 = product of:
  0.093021646 = sum of:
    0.07061958 = weight(_text_:case in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07061958 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
    0.02240206 = product of:
      0.04480412 = sum of:
        0.04480412 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04480412 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, 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=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.024926724 = product of:
  0.08724353 = sum of:
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
    0.02545139 = product of:
      0.05090278 = sum of:
        0.05090278 = weight(_text_:studies in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05090278 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Two studies are presented that investigate information seeking behaviour on the Internet. In study one, soccer fans' information seeking on the World Wide Web is investigated. In study two, access rates to a cancer information Web site are analysed. It is tentatively argued that there is a tendency for people to access information more commonly avoided in "real life", although in the case of football fans, the tendency to "bask in reflected glory" remains when online, while cutting off reflected failure is minimised. Implications for understanding and researching psychological processes of Web browsing behaviour are discussed.

0.024027621 = product of:
  0.08409667 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=988)
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=988)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.5, S.1316-1329

0.023947554 = product of:
  0.08381643 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 6988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=6988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 6988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6988)
    0.030851744 = product of:
      0.06170349 = sum of:
        0.06170349 = weight(_text_:studies in 6988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06170349 = score(doc=6988,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 6988, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Reviews work of the Getty Art History Information Program (AHIP), recently renamed the Getty Information Institute, where humanities scholars were trained in DIALOG online searching and then allowed 24 hour unlimited access to DIALOG searching and DIALOG databases and where complete transaction logs were taken to yield the data upon which the Getty Online Searching Project was based. Summarizes results of the study of this subsidized access which was reported in a series of papers by M.J. Bates, who found that searching patterns of humanities researchers differed substantially from previous studies in the sciences and social sciences disciplines. Presents a model of the relative merits and opportunities associated with the various contractual arrangements and incentive strategies employed by AHIP with vendors such as DIALOG, consortia such as the Research Libraries Group, and a CD-ROM publication programme, compared to print publications and the experimental offer of access to some of the AHIP databases over the WWW. The arguments are illustrated by means of 2 case studies, involving: changes in pricing of the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals; and the Getty Online Searching Project

0.021394007 = product of:
  0.07487902 = sum of:
    0.044027276 = weight(_text_:management in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044027276 = score(doc=1558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
    0.030851744 = product of:
      0.06170349 = sum of:
        0.06170349 = weight(_text_:studies in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06170349 = score(doc=1558,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Reports on a survey of teenagers at a school in Edinburgh, Scotland, conducted as part of the Household Information System (HIS) project at Queen Margaret College. HIS has attempted to apply organizational models of information management to non organizational contexts such as households. Information management concepts have also been complemented by reference to research from sociology and media and cultural studies into the domestic consumption of technologies. Previous HIS research has suggested that notions of technological convergence proposed by producers and suppliers of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are not shared by consumers who prefer to keep their television and computing devioces separate. Television is most often associated with relaxation and entertainment, computing with work and education. However, there is some evidence that expertise with regard to new ICTs is the province of children rather than adults in many homes, a trend which may indicate as inversion of traditional patterns of knowledge dispersal in adult child relationships

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd British-Nordic Conference on Library and Information Studies, Edinburgh, 1997. Organized by the British Association for Information and Library Education (BAILER). Ed.: Micheline Beaulieu et al

0.020170461 = product of:
  0.07059661 = sum of:
    0.04150931 = weight(_text_:management in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04150931 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
    0.029087303 = product of:
      0.058174606 = sum of:
        0.058174606 = weight(_text_:studies in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058174606 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This study measured the speed, error rates, and subjective evaluation of arrow-jump keys, a jump-mouse, number keys, and a touch screen in an interactive encyclopedia. A summary of previous studies comparing selection devices and strategies is presented to provide the background for this study. We found the touch screen to be the fastest in time, the least accurate but the overall favorite of the participants. The results are discussed and improvements are suggested accordingly

Source

Information processing and management. 24(1988), S.665-680

0.018195687 = product of:
  0.1273698 = sum of:
    0.1273698 = sum of:
      0.0881662 = weight(_text_:studies in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0881662 = score(doc=1795,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.039203603 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039203603 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, 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=1795)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Presents a recently composite view of several user studies in information retrieval. Contains personal conclusions and speculations based on these studies, rather than formal statistical results, which so often are not comparable from 1 experiment to another. Suggests a taxonomy of user characteristics for such studies, in order to make results comparable. Discusses methods and effects of user training, then manner of expression of a query or information need, conduct of a search, use of the system command language or its equivalent, analysis by the user of retrieved information, and user satisfaction with outcome. Concludes with suggestions for system design and experimental methodology

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22

0.017804801 = product of:
  0.062316805 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Recently, the importance of application of multiple, qualitative methods has been emphasised in the field of information seeking and retrieval research. (See Fidel 1993; Vakkari 1997). One of the earliest and most ambitious attempts to apply multiple methods was the research project on information needs and information services in local authority social services departments. (Wilson & Streatfield 1977; Wilson, et al., 1979; Wilson 1981). In studies on information needs and seeking qualitative methods have gained a leading position in the 1990's (Vakkari 1997: 451). Indisputably, this is the case when looking at recent information needs, seeking and use research carried out by Algon (1997), Ellen (1998), Barry (1995), Byström (1997), Iivonen (1996), Kirk (1997), Kuhlthau (1993), Solomon (1997) and Sonnenwald and Lievrouw (1996). Furthermore, though the approach of the study is qualitative the application of quantitative techniques is not necessarily excluded. In methodological literature attention is paid to integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques. These methods are not opposite but they complement to each other. In a qualitative study various methods can be combined. Triangulation can be seen in two ways: firstly, to ascertain the validity of research; secondly, to employ the methods that are appropriate to the subject investigated. Application of triangulation in the former way aims at the full, 'objective' picture of the subject studied, while the picture obtained in the latter way is like a kaleidoscope. Thus the ultimate reason for triangulating is to gain deeper understanding of the phenomenon studied.

0.017709637 = product of:
  0.061983727 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.030851744 = product of:
      0.06170349 = sum of:
        0.06170349 = weight(_text_:studies in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06170349 = score(doc=2024,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Over time, researchers have acknowledged the importance of understanding the users' strategies in the design of search systems. However, when involving users in the comparison of search systems, methodological challenges still exist as researchers are pondering on how to handle the variability that human participants bring to the comparisons. This paper present methods for controlling the complexity of user-centered evaluations of search user interfaces through within-subjects designs, balanced task sets, time limitations, pre-formulated queries, cached result pages, and through limiting the users' access to result documents. Additionally, we will present our experiences in using three measures - search speed, qualified search speed, and immediate accuracy - to facilitate the comparison of different search systems over studies.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.82-91

0.016611008 = product of:
  0.058138527 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.0140012875 = product of:
      0.028002575 = sum of:
        0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028002575 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

0.015977843 = product of:
  0.05592245 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
    0.019601801 = product of:
      0.039203603 = sum of:
        0.039203603 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039203603 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

0.015127847 = product of:
  0.05294746 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Multitasking is the human ability to handle the demands of multiple tasks. Multitasking behavior involves the ordering of multiple tasks and switching between tasks. People often multitask when using information retrieval (IR) technologies as they seek information on more than one information problem over single or multiple search episodes. However, limited studies have examined how people order their information problems, especially during their Web search engine interaction. The aim of our exploratory study was to investigate assigned information problem ordering by forty (40) study participants engaged in Web search. Findings suggest that assigned information problem ordering was influenced by the following factors, including personal interest, problem knowledge, perceived level of information available on the Web, ease of finding information, level of importance and seeking information on information problems in order from general to specific. Personal interest and problem knowledge were the major factors during assigned information problem ordering. Implications of the findings and further research are discussed. The relationship between information problem ordering and gratification theory is an important area for further exploration.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.5, S.1366-1378

0.014523807 = product of:
  0.101666644 = sum of:
    0.101666644 = weight(_text_:europe in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101666644 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25178367 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2292)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Report of a study at the University of Montreal (Quebec) analysing research on the behaviour of children using information technology (online databases, CD-ROM, computerised catalogues). From a range of publications covering 6-12 year olds in the US, Canada, Europe and Oceania common features were identified: (1) children's cognitive development does not match the structured approach required for this type of information research, (2) the main abrriers were physical (e.g. using keyboard), intellectual (no capacity for abstract reasoning) and social (little access to computers); (3) in terms of natural skills, boys has greater abilities than girls. Results indicate the need to make technology more appropriate for children, and train libarrians to recognise the real capacities and limitations of children so they can teach them the basic skills