Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012309102 = product of:
  0.036927305 = sum of:
    0.016011827 = product of:
      0.032023653 = sum of:
        0.032023653 = weight(_text_:29 in 2739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032023653 = score(doc=2739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020915478 = product of:
      0.041830957 = sum of:
        0.041830957 = weight(_text_:methods in 2739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041830957 = score(doc=2739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This study investigated whether and how different factors in relation to task, user-perceived knowledge, search process, and system affect users' search tactic selection. Thirty-one participants, representing the general public with their own tasks, were recruited for this study. Multiple methods were employed to collect data, including pre-questionnaire, verbal protocols, log analysis, diaries, and post-questionnaires. Statistical analysis revealed that seven factors were significantly associated with tactic selection. These factors consist of work task types, search task types, familiarity with topic, search skills, search session length, search phases, and system types. Moreover, the study also discovered, qualitatively, in what ways these factors influence the selection of search tactics. Based on the findings, the authors discuss practical implications for system design to support users' application of multiple search tactics for each factor.

Date

29. 1.2016 19:02:38

0.0040251864 = product of:
  0.024151117 = sum of:
    0.024151117 = product of:
      0.048302233 = sum of:
        0.048302233 = weight(_text_:methods in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048302233 = score(doc=5046,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.3077488 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Human interpretation of images during image annotation is complicated, but most existing interactive image annotation systems are generally operated based on social tagging, while ignoring that tags are insufficient to convey image semantics. Hence, it is critical to study the nature of image annotation behaviors and process. This study investigated annotation tactics, transitions, strategies and their efficiency during the image annotation process. A total of 90 participants were recruited to annotate nine pictures in three emotional dimensions with three interactive annotation methods. Data collected from annotation logs and verbal protocols were analyzed by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings of this study show that the cognitive process of human interpretation of images is rather complex, which reveals a probable bias in research involving image relevance feedback. Participants preferred applying scroll bar (Scr) and image comparison (Cim) tactics comparing with rating tactic (Val), and they did fewer fine tuning activities, which reflects the influence of perceptual level and users' cognitive load during image annotation. Annotation tactic transition analysis showed that Cim was more likely to be adopted at the beginning of each phase, and the most remarkable transition was from Cim to Scr. By applying sequence analysis, the authors found 10 most commonly used sequences representing four types of annotation strategies, including Single tactic strategy, Tactic combination strategy, Fix mode strategy and Shift mode strategy. Furthermore, two patterns, "quarter decreasing" and "transition cost," were identified based on time data, and both multiple tactics (e.g., the combination of Cim and Scr) and fine tuning activities were recognized as efficient tactic applications. Annotation patterns found in this study suggest more research needs to be done considering the need for multi-interactive methods and their influence. The findings of this study generated detailed and useful guidance for the interactive design in image annotation systems, including recommending efficient tactic applications in different phases, highlighting the most frequently applied tactics and transitions, and avoiding unnecessary transitions.

0.0035160081 = product of:
  0.021096049 = sum of:
    0.021096049 = product of:
      0.042192098 = sum of:
        0.042192098 = weight(_text_:theory in 3970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042192098 = score(doc=3970,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.25989953 = fieldWeight in 3970, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discover Digital Libraries: Theory and Practice is a book that integrates both research and practice concerning digital library development, use, preservation, and evaluation. The combination of current research and practical guidelines is a unique strength of this book. The authors bring in-depth expertise on different digital library issues and synthesize theoretical and practical perspectives relevant to researchers, practitioners, and students. The book presents a comprehensive overview of the different approaches and tools for digital library development, including discussions of the social and legal issues associated with digital libraries. Readers will find current research and the best practices of digital libraries, providing both US and international perspectives on the development of digital libraries and their components, including collection, digitization, metadata, interface design, sustainability, preservation, retrieval, and evaluation of digital libraries.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=2839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - Previous research has demonstrated that task is the driving force for information retrieval (IR). However, few studies investigate how people engaged in work and search tasks define their decisions and behaviors in the IR process. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how dimensions of tasks affect the information-seeking and retrieving process. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 40 participants are recruited for the two studies conducted in a corporate setting as well as an academic setting. Multiple methods are applied to collect data related to participants' tasks and the information-seeking and retrieving process: web surveys, questionnaires, diaries, and telephone interviews. Both qualitative and quantitative data are analyzed. Findings - This paper identifies nature (routine, typical, and unusual), stages (pre-focus, formation, and post-focus), and timeframe (extremely urgent, urgent, and non-urgent) as dimensions of work tasks as well as origination (self-generated and assigned), types (updating information, looking for specific information, looking for items with common characteristics, and looking for known items), and flexibility (very flexible, flexible, and inflexible) as dimensions of search tasks. Moreover, the relationships between dimensions of work and search tasks and the information-seeking process - in particular, the extent of planning, the application of different types of information-seeking strategies, and shifts in search-task-related goals - are explored. Originality/value - This paper fills in a gap in current research - the impact of dimensions of task on the information-seeking and -retrieving process.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 4097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=4097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 4097, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although many studies have identified search tactics, few studies have explored tactic transitions. This study investigated the transitions of search tactics during the Web-based search process. Bringing their own 60 search tasks, 31 participants, representing the general public with different demographic characteristics, participated in the study. Data collected from search logs and verbal protocols were analyzed by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings of this study show that participants exhibited some unique Web search tactics. They overwhelmingly employed accessing and evaluating tactics; they used fewer tactics related to modifying search statements, monitoring the search process, organizing search results, and learning system features. The contributing factors behind applying most and least frequently employed search tactics are in relation to users' efforts, trust in information retrieval (IR) systems, preference, experience, and knowledge as well as limitation of the system design. A matrix of search-tactic transitions was created to show the probabilities of transitions from one tactic to another. By applying fifth-order Markov chain, the results also presented the most common search strategies representing patterns of tactic transition occurring at the beginning, middle, and ending phases within one search session. The results of this study generated detailed and useful guidance for IR system design to support the most frequently applied tactics and transitions, to reduce unnecessary transitions, and support transitions at different phases.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=4179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A sight-centered digital library (DL) design with complex structures and multimedia formats poses significant challenges for blind users. This study is the first attempt to investigate the top three help-seeking situations as well as associated factors in blind users' DL interactions. A mixed-method approach was adopted for this study. Multiple methods were applied to collect data from 30 blind subjects: questionnaires, presearch interviews, think aloud protocols, transaction logs, and postsearch interviews. The paper identifies the top three help-seeking situations, and associated factors in relation to user, system, task, and interaction. Moreover, different types of main-level factors were tested to investigate if they are correlated to each type of top situation, and qualitative data of sublevel factors offer insight into how these factors are associated with various situations. Without a clear understanding of these situations and factors, the objective of universal access to information in DLs cannot be achieved. DL design implications are further discussed with the goal of providing system design recommendations for reducing blind users' help-seeking situations.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=307,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This is the first study that compares types of orientation tactics that blind and sighted users applied in their initial interactions with a digital library (DL) and the associated factors. Multiple methods were employed for data collection: questionnaires, think-aloud protocols, and transaction logs. The paper identifies seven types of orientation tactics applied by the two groups of users. While sighted users focused on skimming DL content, blind users concentrated on exploring DL structure. Moreover, the authors discovered 13 types of system, user, and interaction factors that led to the use of orientation tactics. More system factors than user factors affect blind users' tactics in browsing DL structures. The findings of this study support the social model that the sight-centered design of DLs, rather than blind users' disability, prohibits them from effectively interacting with a DL. Simultaneously, the results reveal the limitation of existing interactive information retrieval models that do not take people with disabilities into consideration. DL design implications are discussed based on the identified factors.

0.0022238651 = product of:
  0.01334319 = sum of:
    0.01334319 = product of:
      0.02668638 = sum of:
        0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 1754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02668638 = score(doc=1754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1754, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

5. 4.2015 19:02:29

0.0022038599 = product of:
  0.013223159 = sum of:
    0.013223159 = product of:
      0.026446318 = sum of:
        0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 2737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026446318 = score(doc=2737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2737, 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=2737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 3.2009 12:49:20