Search (186 results, page 1 of 10)

0.08322364 = product of:
  0.16644728 = sum of:
    0.15600412 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15600412 = score(doc=4350,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.69801056 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
    0.010443161 = product of:
      0.031329483 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Reports progress and future plans for a project to study the interactions of users with information retrieval interfaces. Tests are run with professional data base searchers and with end users who are members of a profession but have little or no searching experience. Interfaces tested include a command language search system used to search DIALOG bibliographic data bases, a non-procedural system that produces DIALOG commands, and several full text systems, including one using hypertext. The intent is to determine which kinds of users perform best with each type of interface. The project is being conducted jointly bay the University of Toronto and the University of Maryland

0.063541345 = product of:
  0.12708269 = sum of:
    0.10918013 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918013 = score(doc=2024,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.4885056 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.017902562 = product of:
      0.053707685 = sum of:
        0.053707685 = weight(_text_:systems in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053707685 = score(doc=2024,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems

0.06045408 = product of:
  0.12090816 = sum of:
    0.10918013 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918013 = score(doc=5651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.4885056 = fieldWeight in 5651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5651)
    0.011728036 = product of:
      0.035184108 = sum of:
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=5651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5651, 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=5651)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Reports on a study conducted at Indiana University in the summer of 1993 which observed 10 advanced graduate students in language and literature studies as they conducted literature searches using databases on CD-ROM. Presents a brief review of related literature on relevance judgements, human-computer interaction (HCI) and information seeking behaviour of humanities students. The search strategies of the graduate students under study were found to be typical of humanities scholars, who create large sets and review records quickly to select relevant items. Factors influencing relevance assessments included language, source of publication, author, and length of work. Participants especially appreciated electronic access to the Modern Language Association (MLA) International Bibliography but encountered problems with the controlled vocabulary and analytic entries for books and proceedings. The study has identified problems with database content, presentation and search interfaces which should be considered by system designers

Date

8.11.1996 19:42:29

0.059907354 = product of:
  0.11981471 = sum of:
    0.10293601 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10293601 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.46056747 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
    0.016878698 = product of:
      0.05063609 = sum of:
        0.05063609 = weight(_text_:systems in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063609 = score(doc=410,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Observes that whether in academic, special, or public libraries or on commercial online systems, CD-ROM, the online catalogue, or the Internet, certain end user errors crop up repeatedly. Details the main errors, which include input errors, errors arising from confusion in the face of different interfaces and screen designs, Boolean logic errors, term errors, conceptual errors, and errors due to the fact that users do not read instructions. Concludes that systems must solve the trivial errors automatically, but user instruction librarians must help solve the more complex problems

0.059216358 = product of:
  0.118432716 = sum of:
    0.10293601 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10293601 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.46056747 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
    0.015496711 = product of:
      0.046490133 = sum of:
        0.046490133 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046490133 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, 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=5299)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

Footnote

Beitrag in einer Special Section "Perspectives on Search User Interfaces: Best Practices and Future Visions"

0.057435524 = product of:
  0.11487105 = sum of:
    0.10293601 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 8583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10293601 = score(doc=8583,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.46056747 = fieldWeight in 8583, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8583)
    0.01193504 = product of:
      0.03580512 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 8583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=8583,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 8583, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8583)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The searching behaviour of 79 end-users of CD-ROM databases was studied at the UCLA campus libraries. The results indicate that users lack basic knowledge on how to search and consequently their searches are not effective despite their efforts. Users therefore need help through training but most importantly by improving the CD-ROM user interfaces and retrieval systems

0.054078545 = product of:
  0.10815709 = sum of:
    0.090069 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 3899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090069 = score(doc=3899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.40299654 = fieldWeight in 3899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3899)
    0.018088086 = product of:
      0.054264255 = sum of:
        0.054264255 = weight(_text_:systems in 3899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264255 = score(doc=3899,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 3899, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3899)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As libraries face increasing competition in providing information, we must insure that our library systems are usable, effective, efficient, and perhaps even enticing. How do librarians know that systems give users what they need and want? One way is usability testing. Usability testing has been around the computer industry for at least a decade, but library use of the method is relatively new. It has been a common perception that library systems were designed for librarians. Even if the user was considered, it was from the perspective of librarians who worked with the user. Those perceptions were anecdotal, and librarians frequently disagreed with one another about user behavior and knowledge.

0.04446502 = product of:
  0.08893004 = sum of:
    0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07720201 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
    0.011728036 = product of:
      0.035184108 = sum of:
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2658, 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=2658)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-enhanced search tools is an the increase. This paper provides an insight into end-users interaction with and perceptions of such tools. In particular the overlap between users' initial query formulation and thesaurus structures is investigated. This investigation involved the performance of genuine search tasks an the CAB Abstracts database by academic users in the domain of veterinary medicine. The perception of these users regarding the nature and usefulness of the terms suggested from the thesaurus during the search interaction is reported. The results indicated that around 80% of terms entered were matched either exactly or partially to thesaurus terms. Users found over 90% of the terms suggested to be close to their search topics and where terms were selected they indicated that around 50% were to support a 'narrowing down' activity. These findings have implications for the design of thesaurus-enhanced interfaces.

Date

29. 8.2004 16:27:16

0.039626904 = product of:
  0.07925381 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
    0.014918802 = product of:
      0.044756405 = sum of:
        0.044756405 = weight(_text_:systems in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044756405 = score(doc=443,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This is the second part of a two-part article that examines 25 years of published research findings on end-user searching of online information retrieval (IR) systems. In Part 1, it was learned that people enter a few short search statements into online IR systems. Their searches do not resemble the systematic approach of expert searchers who use the full range of IR-system functionality. Part 2 picks up the discussion of research findings about end-user searching in the context of current information retrieval models. These models demonstrate that information retrieval is a complex event, involving changes in cognition, feelings, and/or events during the information seeking process. The author challenges IR researchers to design new studies of end-user searching, collecting data not only on system-feature use, but on multiple search sessions and controlling for variables such as domain knowledge expertise and expert system knowledge. Because future IR systems designers are likely to improve the functionality of online IR systems in response to answers to the new research questions posed here, the author concludes with advice to these designers about retaining the simplicity of online IR system interfaces.

0.039396983 = product of:
  0.15758793 = sum of:
    0.15758793 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15758793 = score(doc=87,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.7050971 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.

0.038601004 = product of:
  0.15440401 = sum of:
    0.15440401 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15440401 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.6908512 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.036366224 = product of:
  0.07273245 = sum of:
    0.063688405 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063688405 = score(doc=1255,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28496158 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
    0.009044043 = product of:
      0.027132127 = sum of:
        0.027132127 = weight(_text_:systems in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027132127 = score(doc=1255,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.20583579 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As digital libraries become a major source of information for many people, we need to know more about how people seek and retrieve information in digital environments. Quite commonly, users with a problem-at-hand and associated question-in-mind repeatedly search a literature for answers, and seek information in stages over extended periods from a variety of digital information resources. The process of repeatedly searching over time in relation to a specific, but possibly an evolving information problem (including changes or shifts in a variety of variables), is called the successive search phenomenon. The study outlined in this paper is currently investigating this new and little explored line of inquiry for information retrieval, Web searching, and digital libraries. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the nature, manifestations, and behavior of successive searching by users in digital environments, and to derive criteria for use in the design of information retrieval interfaces and systems supporting successive searching behavior. This study includes two related projects. The first project is based in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of North Texas and is funded by a National Science Foundation POWRE Grant <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/show?award=9753277>. The second project is based at the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield (UK) and is funded by a grant from the British Library <http://www.shef. ac.uk/~is/research/imrg/uncerty.html> Research and Innovation Center. The broad objectives of each project are to examine the nature and extent of successive search episodes in digital environments by real users over time. The specific aim of the current project is twofold: * To characterize progressive changes and shifts that occur in: user situational context; user information problem; uncertainty reduction; user cognitive styles; cognitive and affective states of the user, and consequently in their queries; and * To characterize related changes over time in the type and use of information resources and search strategies particularly related to given capabilities of IR systems, and IR search engines, and examine changes in users' relevance judgments and criteria, and characterize their differences. The study is an observational, longitudinal data collection in the U.S. and U.K. Three questionnaires are used to collect data: reference, client post search and searcher post search questionnaires. Each successive search episode with a search intermediary for textual materials on the DIALOG Information Service is audiotaped and search transaction logs are recorded. Quantitative analysis includes statistical analysis using Likert scale data from the questionnaires and log-linear analysis of sequential data. Qualitative methods include: content analysis, structuring taxonomies; and diagrams to describe shifts and transitions within and between each search episode. Outcomes of the study are the development of appropriate model(s) for IR interactions in successive search episodes and the derivation of a set of design criteria for interfaces and systems supporting successive searching.

0.035897203 = product of:
  0.071794406 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
    0.007459401 = product of:
      0.022378203 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users

Source

ASIS'91: systems understanding people. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths

0.035897203 = product of:
  0.071794406 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
    0.007459401 = product of:
      0.022378203 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that queries to information retrieval systems will yield more relevant results if they contain multiple topic-related terms and use Boolean and phrase operators to enhance interpretation. Although studies have shown that the users of Web-based search engines typically enter short, term-based queries and rarely use search operators, little information exists concerning the effects of term and operator usage on the relevancy of search results. In this study, search engine users formulated queries on eight search topics. Each query was submitted to the user-specified search engine, and relevancy ratings for the retrieved pages were assigned. Expert-formulated queries were also submitted and provided a basis for comparing relevancy ratings across search engines. Data analysis based on our research model of the term and operator factors affecting relevancy was then conducted. The results show that the difference in the number of terms between expert and nonexpert searches, the percentage of matching terms between those searches, and the erroneous use of nonsupported operators in nonexpert searches explain most of the variation in the relevancy of search results. These findings highlight the need for designing search engine interfaces that provide greater support in the areas of term selection and operator usage

0.03342945 = product of:
  0.1337178 = sum of:
    0.1337178 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1337178 = score(doc=2782,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.59829473 = fieldWeight in 2782, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2782)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Current research on user interfaces to online public access catalogs is reviewed in an attempt to identify research methods and findings applicable to the design of effective user interfaces to online public access catalogs. A broad definition of user interface is employed which includes data structures, in addition to searching and indexing software. The following features of online public access catalogs are discussed: the demonstration of relationships between records, the provision of entry vocabularies, the arrangement of multiple entries on the screen, the provision of access points, the display of single records, and the division of the catalog into separate files or indexes. For each feature, user studies and other research on online public access catalogs are reviewed and those findings summarized which provide insight into user needs concerning that particular feature; issues are identified and directions for further research are suggested. Implications for cataloging codes and standards and system design are discussed

0.028717762 = product of:
  0.057435524 = sum of:
    0.051468004 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051468004 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.23028374 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
    0.00596752 = product of:
      0.01790256 = sum of:
        0.01790256 = weight(_text_:systems in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01790256 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Thesauri have been important information and knowledge organisation tools for more than three decades. The recent emergence and phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have yet been carried out to evaluate how end-users, for whom all these efforts are ostensibly made, interact with and make use of thesauri for query building and expansion. The present paper reports a pilot study carried out to determine the extent to which a thesaurus-enhanced search interface to a web-based database aided end-users in their selection of search terms. The study also investigated the ways in which users interacted with the thesaurus structure, terms, and interface. Thesaurusbased searching and browsing behaviours adopted by users while interacting with the thesaurus-enhanced search interface were also examined. 1. Introduction The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a broad range of applications for knowledge structures in general and thesauri in particular. A number of researchers have predicted that thesauri will increasingly be used in retrieval rather than for indexing (Milstead, 1998; Aitchison et al., 1997) and that their application in information retrieval systems will become more diverse due to the growth of fulltext databases accessed over the Internet (Williamson, 2000). Some researchers have emphasised the need for tailoring the structure and content of thesauri as tools for end-user searching (Bates, 1986; Strong and Drott, 1986; Anderson and Rowley, 1991; Lopez-Huertas, 1997) while others have suggested thesaurus-enhanced user interfaces to support query formulation and expansion (Pollitt et.al., 1994; Jones et.al., 1995; Beaulieu, 1997). The recent phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have been carried out to evaluate the ways in which end-users interact with and make use of online thesauri for query building and expansion. The work reported here expands an a pilot study (Shiri and Revie, 2001) carried out to investigate user - thesaurus interaction in the domains of biology and veterinary medicine.

0.022745859 = product of:
  0.090983436 = sum of:
    0.090983436 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090983436 = score(doc=4331,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.40708798 = fieldWeight in 4331, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4331)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to report an investigation into the ways in which end-users perceive a thesaurus-enhanced search interface, in particular thesaurus and search interface usability. Design/methodology/approach - Thirty academic users, split between staff and postgraduate students, carrying out real search requests were observed during this study. Users were asked to comment on a range of thesaurus and interface characteristics including: ease of use, ease of learning, ease of browsing and navigation, problems and difficulties encountered while interacting with the system, and the effect of browsing on search term selection. Findings - The results suggest that interface usability is a factor affecting thesaurus browsing/navigation and other information-searching behaviours. Academic staff viewed the function of a thesaurus as being useful for narrowing down a search and providing alternative search terms, while postgraduates stressed the role of the thesaurus for broadening searches and providing new terms. Originality/value - The paper provides an insight into the ways in which end-users make use of and interact with a thesaurus-enhanced search interface. This area is new since previous research has particularly focused on how professional searchers and librarians make use of thesauri and thesaurus-enhanced search interfaces. The research reported here suggests that end-users with varying levels of domain knowledge are able to use thesauri that are integrated into search interfaces. It also provides design implications for search interface developers as well as information professionals who are involved in teaching online searching.

0.02251725 = product of:
  0.090069 = sum of:
    0.090069 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090069 = score(doc=2125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.40299654 = fieldWeight in 2125, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2125)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Three different interfaces for online public access catalogues were evaluated using transaction logging as a methodology. In two cases exercises were set and run against each interface so that results could be critically evaluated to indicate areas of weakness. In all cases a random transaction log was derived and this was used to diagnose system problems and identify patterns of behaviour. Results showed that searches were often difficult to categorise, users employing different approaches to the same end. Users also were prepared to undertake sustained searching until something was retrieved; however they then frequently stopped. Search input problems are also identified and possible areas for further research suggested

0.019300502 = product of:
  0.07720201 = sum of:
    0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 4433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07720201 = score(doc=4433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 4433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4433)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) is one of the 6 digital library projects funded by NSF, DARPA, and NASA. ADL's collection and services focus on information containing georeferences: maps, images, data sets, text and other information sources with links to geographic locations. During this study period, 3 different user interfaces were developed and tested by user groups. User feedback was collected through various formal and informal approaches and the results fed back into the design and implementation cycle. This article describes the evolution of the ADL system and the effect of user evaluation on that evolution. ADL is an ongoing project; user feedback and evaluation plans for the remainder of the project are described

0.019300502 = product of:
  0.07720201 = sum of:
    0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07720201 = score(doc=5944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 5944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5944)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There are currently two dominant interface types for searching and browsing large image collections: keywordbased search, and searching by overall similarity to sample images. We present an alternative based on enabling users to navigate along conceptual dimensions that describe the images. The interface makes use of hierarchical faceted metadata and dynamically generated query previews. A usability study, in which 32 art history students explored a collection of 35,000 fine arts images, compares this approach to a standard image search interface. Despite the unfamiliarity and power of the interface (attributes that often lead to rejection of new search interfaces), the study results show that 90% of the participants preferred the metadata approach overall, 97% said that it helped them learn more about the collection, 75% found it more flexible, and 72% found it easier to use than a standard baseline system. These results indicate that a category-based approach is a successful way to provide access to image collections.