Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.14565465 = product of:
  0.1942062 = sum of:
    0.11337131 = weight(_text_:master in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11337131 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3116585 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.36376774 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
    0.037559036 = product of:
      0.07511807 = sum of:
        0.07511807 = weight(_text_:file in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07511807 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.29610437 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

UDC aims to be a consistent and complete classification system, that enables practitioners to classify documents swiftly and smoothly. The eventual goal of UDC is to enable the public at large to retrieve documents from large collections of documents that are classified with UDC. The large size of the UDC Master Reference File, MRF with over 66.000 records, makes it difficult to obtain an overview and to understand its structure. Moreover, finding the right classification in MRF turns out to be difficult in practice. Last but not least, retrieval of documents requires insight and understanding of the coding system. Visualization is an effective means to support the development of UDC as well as its use by practitioners. Moreover, visualization offers possibilities to use the classification without use of the coding system as such. MagnaView has developed an application which demonstrates the use of interactive visualization to face these challenges. In our presentation, we discuss these challenges, and we give a demonstration of the way the application helps face these. Examples of visualizations can be found below.

0.04008281 = product of:
  0.16033123 = sum of:
    0.16033123 = weight(_text_:master in 4035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16033123 = score(doc=4035,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3116585 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.51444525 = fieldWeight in 4035, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4035)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Schlagwortnormdatei (SWD) stellt als kooperativ erstelltes, kontrolliertes Vokabular ein aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum nicht mehr wegzudenkendes Mittel zur Verschlagwortung von Medien dar. Die SWD dient primär der Vereinheitlichung der Verschlagwortung. Darüber hinaus sind in der Struktur der SWD Relationen zwischen Schlagwörtern definiert, die eine gut vorbereitete Suche stark erleichtern können. Beispiel für solche Relationen sind die Unterbegriff-/Oberbegriffrelationen (Hyponym/Hyperonym) oder die Relation der Ähnlichkeit von Begriffen. Diese Arbeit unternimmt den Versuch, durch die Erstellung eines Such- und Visualisierungstools den Umgang mit der SWD zu erleichtern. Im Fokus der Arbeit steht dabei zum einen die Aufgabe des Fachreferenten, ein Medium geeignet zu verschlagworten. Diese Aufgabe soll durch die Optimierung der technischen Suchmöglichkeiten mit Hilfe von Schlagwörtern geschehen, z.B. durch die Suche mit Hilfe Regulärer Ausdrücke oder durch die Suche entlang der hierarchischen Relationen. Zum anderen sind die beschriebenen Relationen innerhalb der SWD oft unsauber spezifiziert, was ein negativer Seiteneffekt der interdisziplinären und kooperativen Erstellung der SWD ist. Es wird gezeigt, dass durch geeignete Visualisierung viele Fehler schnell auffindbar und korrigierbar sind, was die Aufgabe der Datenpflege um ein Vielfaches vereinfacht. Diese Veröffentlichung geht zurück auf eine Master-Arbeit im postgradualen Fernstudiengang Master of Arts (Library and Information Science) an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

0.034011394 = product of:
  0.13604558 = sum of:
    0.13604558 = weight(_text_:master in 4585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13604558 = score(doc=4585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3116585 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.4365213 = fieldWeight in 4585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4585)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Diese Publikation entstand im Rahmen einer Thesis zum Master of Science FHO in Business Administration, Major Information and Data Management.

0.030892981 = product of:
  0.061785962 = sum of:
    0.048961036 = weight(_text_:reference in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048961036 = score(doc=2659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2542731 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
    0.012824926 = product of:
      0.025649851 = sum of:
        0.025649851 = weight(_text_:22 in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025649851 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2659, 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=2659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) has been developed over the course of more than a century, predating the semantic web by some time. Until the 1986, the only concept-toconcept relationship available was an undifferentiated "See Also" reference, which was used for both associative (RT) and hierarchical (BT/NT) connections. In that year, in preparation for the first release of the headings in machine readable MARC Authorities form, an attempt was made to automatically convert these "See Also" links into the standardized thesaural relations. Unfortunately, the rule used to determine the type of reference to generate relied on the presence of symmetric links to detect associatively related terms; "See Also" references that were only present in one of the related terms were assumed to be hierarchical. This left the process vulnerable to inconsistent use of references in the pre-conversion data, with a marked bias towards promoting relationships to hierarchical status. The Library of Congress was aware that the results of the conversion contained many inconsistencies, and intended to validate and correct the results over the course of time. Unfortunately, twenty years later, less than 40% of the converted records have been evaluated. The converted records, being the earliest encountered during the Library's cataloging activities, represent the most basic concepts within LCSH; errors in the syndetic structure for these records affect far more subordinate concepts than those nearer the periphery. Worse, a policy of patterning new headings after pre-existing ones leads to structural errors arising from the conversion process being replicated in these newer headings, perpetuating and exacerbating the errors. As the LCSH prepares for its second great conversion, from MARC to SKOS, it is critical to address these structural problems. As part of the work on converting the headings into SKOS, I have experimented with different visualizations of the tangled web of broader terms embedded in LCSH. This poster illustrates several of these renderings, shows how they can help users to judge which relationships might not be correct, and shows just exactly how Doorbells and Mammals are related.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.018197427 = product of:
  0.036394853 = sum of:
    0.02998239 = weight(_text_:reference in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02998239 = score(doc=1789,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.15570983 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
    0.006412463 = product of:
      0.012824926 = sum of:
        0.012824926 = weight(_text_:22 in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012824926 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

23. 3.2008 19:10:22

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.9, S.905-906 (C.A. Badurek): "Visual approaches for knowledge discovery in very large databases are a prime research need for information scientists focused an extracting meaningful information from the ever growing stores of data from a variety of domains, including business, the geosciences, and satellite and medical imagery. This work presents a summary of research efforts in the fields of data mining, knowledge discovery, and data visualization with the goal of aiding the integration of research approaches and techniques from these major fields. The editors, leading computer scientists from academia and industry, present a collection of 32 papers from contributors who are incorporating visualization and data mining techniques through academic research as well application development in industry and government agencies. Information Visualization focuses upon techniques to enhance the natural abilities of humans to visually understand data, in particular, large-scale data sets. It is primarily concerned with developing interactive graphical representations to enable users to more intuitively make sense of multidimensional data as part of the data exploration process. It includes research from computer science, psychology, human-computer interaction, statistics, and information science. Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD) most often refers to the process of mining databases for previously unknown patterns and trends in data. Data mining refers to the particular computational methods or algorithms used in this process. The data mining research field is most related to computational advances in database theory, artificial intelligence and machine learning. This work compiles research summaries from these main research areas in order to provide "a reference work containing the collection of thoughts and ideas of noted researchers from the fields of data mining and data visualization" (p. 8). It addresses these areas in three main sections: the first an data visualization, the second an KDD and model visualization, and the last an using visualization in the knowledge discovery process. The seven chapters of Part One focus upon methodologies and successful techniques from the field of Data Visualization. Hoffman and Grinstein (Chapter 2) give a particularly good overview of the field of data visualization and its potential application to data mining. An introduction to the terminology of data visualization, relation to perceptual and cognitive science, and discussion of the major visualization display techniques are presented. Discussion and illustration explain the usefulness and proper context of such data visualization techniques as scatter plots, 2D and 3D isosurfaces, glyphs, parallel coordinates, and radial coordinate visualizations. Remaining chapters present the need for standardization of visualization methods, discussion of user requirements in the development of tools, and examples of using information visualization in addressing research problems.
With contributors almost exclusively from the computer science field, the intended audience of this work is heavily slanted towards a computer science perspective. However, it is highly readable and provides introductory material that would be useful to information scientists from a variety of domains. Yet, much interesting work in information visualization from other fields could have been included giving the work more of an interdisciplinary perspective to complement their goals of integrating work in this area. Unfortunately, many of the application chapters are these, shallow, and lack complementary illustrations of visualization techniques or user interfaces used. However, they do provide insight into the many applications being developed in this rapidly expanding field. The authors have successfully put together a highly useful reference text for the data mining and information visualization communities. Those interested in a good introduction and overview of complementary research areas in these fields will be satisfied with this collection of papers. The focus upon integrating data visualization with data mining complements texts in each of these fields, such as Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Fayyad et al., MIT Press) and Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think (Card et. al., Morgan Kauffman). This unique work is a good starting point for future interaction between researchers in the fields of data visualization and data mining and makes a good accompaniment for a course focused an integrating these areas or to the main reference texts in these fields."

0.015300324 = product of:
  0.061201297 = sum of:
    0.061201297 = weight(_text_:reference in 2888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061201297 = score(doc=2888,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 2888, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2888)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study investigated how people comprehend three-dimensional (3D) visualizations and what properties of such visualizations affect comprehension. Participants were asked to draw the face of a 3D visualization after it was cut in half. We videotaped the participants as they drew, erased, verbalized their thoughts, gestured, and moved about a two-dimensional paper presentation of the 3D visualization. The videorecords were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to generate hypotheses related to comprehension difficulties and visualization properties. Our analysis of the results uncovered three properties that made problem solving more difficult for participants. These were: (a) cuts that were at an angle in relation to at least one plane of reference, (b) nonplanar properties of the features contained in the 3D visualizations including curved layers and v-shaped layers, and (c) mixed combinations of layers. In contrast, (a) cutting planes that were perpendicular or parallel to the 3D visualization diagram's planes of reference, (b) internal features that were flat/planar, and (c) homogeneous layers were easier to comprehend. This research has direct implications for the generation and use of 3D information visualizations in that it suggests design features to include and avoid.

0.015146547 = product of:
  0.060586188 = sum of:
    0.060586188 = weight(_text_:reference in 2620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060586188 = score(doc=2620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 2620, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2620)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the use of concept maps as one of the semantic tools employed in the ADEPT (Alexandria Digital Earth Prototype) Digital Learning Environment (DLE) for teaching undergraduate classes. The graphic representation of the conceptualizations is derived from the knowledge in stronglystructured models (SSMs) of concepts represented in one or more knowledge bases. Such knowledge bases function as a source of "reference" information about concepts in a given context, including information about their scientific representation, scientific semantics, manipulation, and interrelationships to other concepts.

0.015146547 = product of:
  0.060586188 = sum of:
    0.060586188 = weight(_text_:reference in 3099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060586188 = score(doc=3099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 3099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3099)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The importance of information visualization as a means of transforming data into visual, understandable form is now embraced across university campuses and research institutes world-wide. Yet, the role of designers in this field of activity is often overlooked by the dominant scientific and technological interests in data visualization, and a corporate culture reliant on off-the-shelf visualization tools. This article is an attempt to describe the value of design thinking in information visualization with reference to Horst Rittel's ([1988]) definition of disorderly reasoning, and to frame design as a critical act of translating between scientific, technical, and aesthetic interests.

0.015146547 = product of:
  0.060586188 = sum of:
    0.060586188 = weight(_text_:reference in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060586188 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

IFLA Library Reference Model

0.014991195 = product of:
  0.05996478 = sum of:
    0.05996478 = weight(_text_:reference in 1292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05996478 = score(doc=1292,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31141967 = fieldWeight in 1292, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Traditional print reference guides often have two methods of finding information: an order (alphabetical for dictionaries and encyclopedias, by subject hierarchy in the case of thesauri) and indices (ordered lists, with a more complete listing of words and concepts, which refers back to original content from the main body of the book). A user of such traditional print reference guides who is looking for information will either browse through the ordered information in the main body of the reference book, or scan through the indices to find what is necessary. The advent of the computer allows for much more rapid electronic searches of the same information, and for multiple layers of indices. Users can either search through information by entering a keyword, or users can browse through the information through an outline index, which represents the information contained in the main body of the data. There are two traditional user interfaces for such applications. First, the user may type text into a search field and in response, a list of results is returned to the user. The user then selects a returned entry and may page through the resulting information. Alternatively, the user may choose from a list of words from an index. For example, software thesaurus applications, in which a user attempts to find synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, etc. for a selected word, are usually implemented using the conventional search and presentation techniques discussed above. The presentation of results only allows for a one-dimensional order of data at any one time. In addition, only a limited number of results can be shown at once, and selecting a result inevitably leads to another page-if the result is not satisfactory, the users must search again. Finally, it is difficult to present information about the manner in which the search results are related, or to present quantitative information about the results without causing confusion. Therefore, there exists a need for a multidimensional graphical display of information, in particular with respect to information relating to the meaning of words and their relationships to other words. There further exists a need to present large amounts of information in a way that can be manipulated by the user, without the user losing his place. And there exists a need for more fluid, intuitive and powerful thesaurus functionality that invites the exploration of language.

0.010818963 = product of:
  0.04327585 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=3437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The idea of constructing science maps based on bibliographic data has intrigued researchers for decades, and various techniques have been developed to map the structure of research disciplines. Most science mapping studies use a single method. However, as research fields have various properties, a valid map of a field should actually be composed of a set of maps derived from a series of investigations using different methods. That leads to the question of what can be learned from a combination-triangulation-of these different science maps. In this paper we propose a method for triangulation, using the example of water science. We combine three different mapping approaches: journal-journal citation relations (JJCR), shared author keywords (SAK), and title word-cited reference co-occurrence (TWRC). Our results demonstrate that triangulation of JJCR, SAK, and TWRC produces a more comprehensive picture than each method applied individually. The outcomes from the three different approaches can be associated with each other and systematically interpreted to provide insights into the complex multidisciplinary structure of the field of water research.

0.00865517 = product of:
  0.03462068 = sum of:
    0.03462068 = weight(_text_:reference in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03462068 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.

0.008015579 = product of:
  0.032062314 = sum of:
    0.032062314 = product of:
      0.06412463 = sum of:
        0.06412463 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06412463 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.008015579 = product of:
  0.032062314 = sum of:
    0.032062314 = product of:
      0.06412463 = sum of:
        0.06412463 = weight(_text_:22 in 2755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06412463 = score(doc=2755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.007511807 = product of:
  0.030047229 = sum of:
    0.030047229 = product of:
      0.060094457 = sum of:
        0.060094457 = weight(_text_:file in 5215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060094457 = score(doc=5215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23688349 = fieldWeight in 5215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The reader of a hypertext document in a web environment, if maximum use of the document is to be obtained, must visualize the overall structure of the paths through the document as well as the document space. Graphic visualization displays of this space, produced to assist in navigation, are classified into four groups, and Heo and Hirtle compare three of these classes as to their effectiveness. Distortion displays expand regions of interest while relatively diminishing the detail of the remaining regions. This technique will show both local detail and global structure. Zoom techniques use a series of increasingly focused displays of smaller and smaller areas, and can reduce cogitative overload, but do not provide an easy movement to other parts of the total space. Expanding outline displays use a tree structure to allow movement through a hierarchy of documents, but if the organization has a wide horizontal structure, or is not particularly hierarchical in nature such display can break down. Three dimensional layouts, which are not evaluated here, place objects by location in three space, providing more information and freedom. However, the space must be represented in two dimensions resulting in difficulty in visually judging depth, size and positioning. Ten students were assigned to each of eight groups composed of viewers of the three techniques and an unassisted control group using either a large (583 selected pages) or a small (50 selected pages) web space. Sets of 10 questions, which were designed to elicit the use of a visualization tool, were provided for each space. Accuracy and time spent were extracted from a log file. Users views were also surveyed after completion. ANOVA shows significant differences in accuracy and time based upon the visualization tool in use. A Tukey test shows zoom accuracy to be significantly less than expanding outline and zoom time to be significantly greater than both the outline and control groups. Size significantly affected accuracy and time, but had no interaction with tool type. While the expanding tool class out performed zoom and distortion, its performance was not significantly different from the control group.

0.0068014446 = product of:
  0.027205778 = sum of:
    0.027205778 = product of:
      0.054411557 = sum of:
        0.054411557 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054411557 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:54:03
22. 1.2017 17:10:56

0.005610905 = product of:
  0.02244362 = sum of:
    0.02244362 = product of:
      0.04488724 = sum of:
        0.04488724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04488724 = score(doc=2500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2500, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 1.2007 18:22:41

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:35:21

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 3693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=3693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3693, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2010 19:36:46