Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.046005663 = product of:
  0.18402265 = sum of:
    0.18402265 = weight(_text_:sites in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18402265 = score(doc=2565,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.2408473 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046071928 = queryNorm
        0.76406354 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this study, we compare a search tool, TOPIC, with three other widely used tools that retrieve information from the Web: AltaVista, Google, and Lycos. These tools use different techniques for outputting and ranking Web sites: external link structure (TOPIC and Google) and semantic content analysis (AltaVista and Lycos). TOPIC purports to output, and highly rank within its hit list, reputable Web sites for searched topics. In this study, 80 participants reviewed the output (i.e., highly ranked sites) from each tool and assessed the quality of retrieved sites. The 4800 individual assessments of 240 sites that represent 12 topics indicated that Google tends to identify and highly rank significantly more reputable Web sites than TOPIC, which, in turn, outputs more than AltaVista and Lycos, but this was not consistent from topic to topic. Metrics derived from reputation research were used in the assessment and a factor analysis was employed to identify a key factor, which we call 'repute'. The results of this research include insight into the factors that Web users consider in formulating perceptions of Web site reputation, and insight into which search tools are outputting reputable sites for Web users. Our findings, we believe, have implications for Web users and suggest the need for future research to assess the relationship between Web page characteristics and their perceived reputation.

0.016797554 = product of:
  0.067190215 = sum of:
    0.067190215 = sum of:
      0.03597966 = weight(_text_:design in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03597966 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046071928 = queryNorm
          0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
      0.031210553 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031210553 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046071928 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Webcasting systems were developed to provide remote access in real-time to live events. Today, these systems have an additional requirement: to accommodate the "second life" of webcasts as archival information objects. Research to date has focused on facilitating the production and storage of webcasts as well as the development of more interactive and collaborative multimedia tools to support the event, but research has not examined how people interact with a webcasting system to access and use the contents of those archived events. Using an experimental design, this study examined how 16 typical users interact with a webcasting system to respond to a set of information tasks: selecting a webcast, searching for specific information, and making a gist of a webcast. Using several data sources that included user actions, user perceptions, and user explanations of their actions and decisions, the study also examined the strategies employed to complete the tasks. The results revealed distinctive system-use patterns for each task and provided insights into the types of tools needed to make webcasting systems better suited for also using the webcasts as information objects.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:16:14

0.016797554 = product of:
  0.067190215 = sum of:
    0.067190215 = sum of:
      0.03597966 = weight(_text_:design in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03597966 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046071928 = queryNorm
          0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.031210553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031210553 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046071928 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - One core element of interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is the assignment of search tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of current practice in developing those search tasks to test, observe or control task complexity and difficulty. Design/methodology/approach - Over 100 prior studies of IIR were examined in terms of how each defined task complexity and/or difficulty (or related concepts) and subsequently interpreted those concepts in the development of the assigned search tasks. Findings - Search task complexity is found to include three dimensions: multiplicity of subtasks or steps, multiplicity of facets, and indeterminability. Search task difficulty is based on an interaction between the search task and the attributes of the searcher or the attributes of the search situation. The paper highlights the anomalies in our use of these two concepts, concluding with suggestions for future methodological research related to search task complexity and difficulty. Originality/value - By analyzing and synthesizing current practices, this paper provides guidance for future experiments in IIR that involve these two constructs.

Date

6. 4.2015 19:31:22

0.010905754 = product of:
  0.043623015 = sum of:
    0.043623015 = product of:
      0.08724603 = sum of:
        0.08724603 = weight(_text_:design in 3900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08724603 = score(doc=3900,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.5036589 = fieldWeight in 3900, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

User-centered design (UCD) emerged a couple of decades ago because people had difficulties in using systems. It is founded on the principle that users need to be involved in the design and development process for systems to be truly usable-efficient, effective, and satisfying. This entry provides an account of the background-the technological and social forces that affect the evolution of systems development, an explanation of the theoretical foundation on which UCD is build, and a description of a typical UCD process.

0.0077898246 = product of:
  0.031159298 = sum of:
    0.031159298 = product of:
      0.062318597 = sum of:
        0.062318597 = weight(_text_:design in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062318597 = score(doc=1731,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.35975635 = fieldWeight in 1731, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand the needs of humanists with respect to information and communication technology (ICT) in order to prescribe the design of an e-humanist's workbench. Design/methodology/approach - A web-based survey comprising over 60 questions gathered the following data from 169 humanists: profile of the humanist, use of ICT in teaching, e-texts, text analysis tools, access to and use of primary and secondary sources, and use of collaboration and communication tools. Findings - Humanists conduct varied forms of research and use multiple techniques. They rely on the availability of inexpensive, quality-controlled e-texts for their research. The existence of primary sources in digital form influences the type of research conducted. They are unaware of existing tools for conducting text analyses, but expressed a need for better tools. Search engines have replaced the library catalogue as the key access tool for sources. Research continues to be solitary with little collaboration among scholars. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on a self-selected sample of humanists who responded to a web-based survey. Future research needs to examine the work of the scholar at a more detailed level, preferably through observation and/or interviewing. Practical implications - The findings support a five-part framework that could serve as the basis for the design of an e-humanist's workbench. Originality/value - The paper examines the needs of the humanist, founded on an integration of information science research and humanities computing for a more comprehensive understanding of the humanist at work.

0.0044974573 = product of:
  0.01798983 = sum of:
    0.01798983 = product of:
      0.03597966 = sum of:
        0.03597966 = weight(_text_:design in 6505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03597966 = score(doc=6505,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 6505, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metaphors are used in the design of systems to ameliorate complxities, to exploit prior knowledge, and to enhace the user's understanding of the system. In this study, we examined the electronic city metaphor adopted by Free-Nets, the average citizen's medium for accessing electronic community information. The electronic city metaphor represents a categorized set of menus as buildings in a mythical city. To examnie this metaphor, we compared the performance of 2 groups of university student subjects who used a simulated Free-Net to find answers to simple factual questions. One group used an interface that embodied the electronic city metaphor, while the other group used an interface with labels composed from everyday language. Subjects used the simulated Free-Net in 2 sessions, about a week apart. Results were assessed using 3 performance measures: Number of top-level menu choices used, number of correct answers, and amout of time taken to respond to questions. Preference ratings were also obtained. Results indicated that both groups performed about equally in the first session, but that only the subjects who used the everyday language menu showed a learning effect over time. Subjects in both groups expressed a definite preference for the non-metaphor interface. The results raise questions about the utility of this type of metaphor, especially to represent categorized lists

0.0044974573 = product of:
  0.01798983 = sum of:
    0.01798983 = product of:
      0.03597966 = sum of:
        0.03597966 = weight(_text_:design in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03597966 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Facilitating engaging user experiences is essential in the design of interactive systems. To accomplish this, it is necessary to understand the composition of this construct and how to evaluate it. Building on previous work that posited a theory of engagement and identified a core set of attributes that operationalized this construct, we constructed and evaluated a multidimensional scale to measure user engagement. In this paper we describe the development of the scale, as well as two large-scale studies (N=440 and N=802) that were undertaken to assess its reliability and validity in online shopping environments. In the first we used Reliability Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis to identify six attributes of engagement: Perceived Usability, Aesthetics, Focused Attention, Felt Involvement, Novelty, and Endurability. In the second we tested the validity of and relationships among those attributes using Structural Equation Modeling. The result of this research is a multidimensional scale that may be used to test the engagement of software applications. In addition, findings indicate that attributes of engagement are highly intertwined, a complex interplay of user-system interaction variables. Notably, Perceived Usability played a mediating role in the relationship between Endurability and Novelty, Aesthetics, Felt Involvement, and Focused Attention.

0.003901319 = product of:
  0.015605276 = sum of:
    0.015605276 = product of:
      0.031210553 = sum of:
        0.031210553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031210553 = score(doc=5256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5256, 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=5256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 14:28:55

0.003901319 = product of:
  0.015605276 = sum of:
    0.015605276 = product of:
      0.031210553 = sum of:
        0.031210553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031210553 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 3.2008 13:39:22

0.0031210552 = product of:
  0.012484221 = sum of:
    0.012484221 = product of:
      0.024968442 = sum of:
        0.024968442 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024968442 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:44:47