Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07159196 = product of:
  0.14318392 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=644,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While the search interfaces used by common academic digital libraries provide easy access to a wealth of peer-reviewed literature, their interfaces provide little support for exploratory browsing. When faced with a complex search task (such as one that requires knowledge discovery), exploratory browsing is an important first step in an exploratory search process. To more effectively support exploratory browsing, we have designed and implemented a novel academic digital library search interface (KLink Search) with two new features: visually linked keywords and an interactive workspace. To study the potential value of these features, we have conducted a controlled laboratory study with 32 participants, comparing KLink Search to a baseline digital library search interface modeled after that used by IEEE Xplore. Based on subjective opinions, objective performance, and behavioral data, we show the value of adding lightweight visual and interactive features to academic digital library search interfaces to support exploratory browsing.

0.04399944 = product of:
  0.08799888 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=307,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=307,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.