Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027822888 = product of:
  0.06955722 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=5256,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 5256, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5256)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=5256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to capture, understand, and model the process used by bioinformatics analysts when facing a specific scientific problem. Integrating information behavior with task analysis, we interviewed 20 bioinformatics experts about the process they follow to conduct a typical bioinformatics analysis - a functional analysis of a gene, and then used a task analysis approach to model that process. We found that each expert followed a unique process in using bioinformatics resources, but had significant similarities with their peers. We synthesized these unique processes into a standard research protocol, from which we developed a procedural model that describes the process of conducting a functional analysis of a gene. The model protocol consists of a series of 16 individual steps, each of which specifies detail for the type of analysis, how and why it is conducted, the tools used, the data input and output, and the interpretation of the results. The linking of information behavior and task analysis research is a novel approach, as it provides a rich high-level view of information behavior while providing a detailed analysis at the task level. In this article we concentrate on the latter.

Date

22. 7.2006 14:28:55

0.023821492 = product of:
  0.059553728 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to critically deconstruct the term engagement as it applies to peoples' experiences with technology. Through an extensive, critical multidisciplinary literature review and exploratory study of users of Web searching, online shopping, Webcasting, and gaming applications, we conceptually and operationally defined engagement. Building on past research, we conducted semistructured interviews with the users of four applications to explore their perception of being engaged with the technology. Results indicate that engagement is a process comprised of four distinct stages: point of engagement, period of sustained engagement, disengagement, and reengagement. Furthermore, the process is characterized by attributes of engagement that pertain to the user, the system, and user-system interaction. We also found evidence of the factors that contribute to nonengagement. Emerging from this research is a definition of engagement - a term not defined consistently in past work - as a quality of user experience characterized by attributes of challenge, positive affect, endurability, aesthetic and sensory appeal, attention, feedback, variety/novelty, interactivity, and perceived user control. This exploratory work provides the foundation for future work to test the conceptual model in various application areas, and to develop methods to measure engaging user experiences.

Date

21. 3.2008 13:39:22

0.019057194 = product of:
  0.047642983 = sum of:
    0.019320453 = weight(_text_:it in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019320453 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.12782113 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
    0.02832253 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02832253 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Browsing is considered to be unstructured and human-driven, although not a cognitively intensive process. It is conducted using systems that facilitate considerable user-system interactivity. Cued by the content, people immerse themselves in a topic of interest and meander from topic to topic while concurrently recognising interesting and informative information en route. They seem to seek and gather information in a purposeless, illogical and indiscriminate manner. Typical examples of these ostensibly random acts are scanning a non-fiction book, examining the morning newspaper, perusing the contents of a business report and scavenging the World Wide Web. Often the result is the acquisition of new information, the rejection or confirmation of an idea, or the genesis of new, perhaps not-wholly-formed thoughts about a topic. Noteworthy about this approach is that people explore information without having consciously structured queries or explicit goals. This form of passive information interaction behaviour is defined as acquiring and gathering information while scanning an information space without a specific goal in mind (Waterworth & Chignell, 1991; Toms, 1997), and for the purposes of this study, is called browsing. Traditionally, browsing is thought of in two ways: as a physical process - the action taken when one scans a list, a document, or a set of linked information nodes (e.g., Fox & Palay, 1979; Thompson & Croft, 1989; Ellis, 1989), and as a conceptual process, information seeking when the goal is ill-defined (e.g., Cove & Walsh, 1987). Browsing is also combined with searching in an integrated information-seeking process for retrieving information (e.g., Ellis, 1989; Belkin, Marchetti & Cool, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Chang, 1995). Each of these cases focuses primarily on seeking information when the objective ranges from fuzzy to explicit.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:44:47

0.008366001 = product of:
  0.041830003 = sum of:
    0.041830003 = weight(_text_:it in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041830003 = score(doc=2044,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27674085 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Serendipity is not an easy word to define. Its meaning has been stretched to apply to experiences ranging from the mundane to the exceptional. Serendipity, however, is consistently associated with unexpected and positive personal, scholarly, scientific, organizational, and societal events and discoveries. Diverse serendipitous experiences share a conceptual space; therefore, what lessons can we draw from an exploration of how serendipity unfolds and what may influence it? This article describes an investigation of work-related serendipity. Twelve professionals and academics from a variety of fields were interviewed. The core of the semi-structured interviews focused on participants' own work-related experiences that could be recalled and discussed in depth. This research validated and augmented prior research while consolidating previous models of serendipity into a single model of the process of serendipity, consisting of: Trigger, Connection, Follow-up, and Valuable Outcome, and an Unexpected Thread that runs through 1 or more of the first 4 elements. Together, the elements influence the Perception of Serendipity. Furthermore, this research identified what factors relating to the individual and their environment may facilitate the main elements of serendipity and further influence its perception.

0.0070806327 = product of:
  0.035403162 = sum of:
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:16:14

0.0070806327 = product of:
  0.035403162 = sum of:
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 4.2015 19:31:22

0.006830811 = product of:
  0.034154054 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=3312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 3900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=3900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 3900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3900)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0038640907 = product of:
  0.019320453 = sum of:
    0.019320453 = weight(_text_:it in 6699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019320453 = score(doc=6699,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.12782113 = fieldWeight in 6699, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6699)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Documents belonging to a genre have a definite structure which has evolved within specific discourse communities to the point where its use is fixed and standardized. We speculate that such a structure exhibits a strong visual cue, facilitating document recognition and defining a shape of information. To test the concept of shape, 72 participants from two groups (half currently working in an academic setting and half from the general public) examined 24 documents typically used in the academic environment. The documents were in three versions: one based on form, in which the text was masked, leaving only the layout, a second based on content, in which the document was reduced to its semantic information only, and the full version, the original unaltered document. On examining each of the 24 documents (e.g., journal article, call for papers, annotated bibliography) in one of the three versions, participants identified: the type of document and, its recognizable and/or unfamiliar features. In addition, they assessed 8 print versions of the form document for suggestive features of shape. Two variables were tested: the genre element (form or content) and the participant's membership in the academic community. Not unexpectedly, participants identified more documents in the Full and Content versions than the Form versions. But Form versions were recognized twice as quickly as the other two versions. Thus when document shape was evident, the document was immediately discernible to participants; when participants were required to read the semantic content for a gist of the document and an extrapolation of its contents, it took more time. Surprisingly, discourse community had no effect