Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.045528244 = product of:
  0.09105649 = sum of:
    0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07161439 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
    0.019442094 = product of:
      0.03888419 = sum of:
        0.03888419 = weight(_text_:model in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03888419 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.21242073 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.035095602 = product of:
  0.070191205 = sum of:
    0.05729151 = weight(_text_:space in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05729151 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.23062189 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
    0.012899691 = product of:
      0.025799382 = sum of:
        0.025799382 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025799382 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.027504401 = product of:
  0.110017605 = sum of:
    0.110017605 = sum of:
      0.07776838 = weight(_text_:model in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07776838 = score(doc=5256,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.42484146 = fieldWeight in 5256, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5256)
      0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032249227 = score(doc=5256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.017783355 = product of:
  0.07113342 = sum of:
    0.07113342 = sum of:
      0.03888419 = weight(_text_:model in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03888419 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.21242073 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
      0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032249227 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.010998109 = product of:
  0.043992437 = sum of:
    0.043992437 = product of:
      0.087984875 = sum of:
        0.087984875 = weight(_text_:model in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087984875 = score(doc=1013,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.48065326 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information interaction is the process that people use in interacting with the content of an information system. Information architecture is a blueprint and navigational aid to the content of information-rich systems. As such information architecture performs an important supporting rote in information interactivity. This article elaborates an a model of information interactivity that crosses the "no-man's land" between user and computer articulating a model that includes user, content and system, illustrating the context for information architecture.

0.0040311534 = product of:
  0.016124614 = sum of:
    0.016124614 = product of:
      0.032249227 = sum of:
        0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032249227 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:16:14

0.0040311534 = product of:
  0.016124614 = sum of:
    0.016124614 = product of:
      0.032249227 = sum of:
        0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032249227 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 4.2015 19:31:22