Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013708099 = product of:
  0.054832395 = sum of:
    0.054832395 = product of:
      0.10966479 = sum of:
        0.10966479 = weight(_text_:software in 4884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10966479 = score(doc=4884,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.6073436 = fieldWeight in 4884, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Raw data set (in CSV format) of a user survey about usage and needs regarding reference management software (like Endnote, Zotero, Citavi) in germany 2011. Participants were mainly college students, librarians, and other users of reference management software.

Theme

Bibliographische Software

0.006995385 = product of:
  0.02798154 = sum of:
    0.02798154 = product of:
      0.05596308 = sum of:
        0.05596308 = weight(_text_:software in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05596308 = score(doc=566,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Arbeit untersucht die Usability von Online-Wörterbüchern und elektronischen Sprachportalen und soll eine Brücke zwischen der Usability von Websites hinsichtlich softwareergonomischer Normen und Konventionen und Wörterbüchern in elektronischer Form schlagen. Die einzige Usability-Methode, mit der es möglich ist, konkrete und empirisch belegte Aussagen darüber zu treffen, wie potentielle Nutzer ein Online-Wörterbuch verwenden und welche Probleme dabei festgestellt werden, ist ein Usability- Test mit realen Benutzern. Als Untersuchungsgegenstand dient das Online-Wortschatz-Informationssystem Deutsch (Owid), die Base lexicale du français (BLF) und das elektronische Lernerwörterbuch Deutsch-Italienisch (Eldit). Die Arbeit setzt sich aus vier verschiedenen empirischen Studien zusammen. Da ein Usability-Test immer nur einen Ausschnitt an Funktionalitäten aus einem gesamten System widerspiegeln kann, wurden mithilfe einer empirischen Fragebogen-Studie zunächst die für den Benutzer wichtigsten und am meisten verwendeten Funktionen eines Online-Wörterbuchs identifiziert und als Grundlage für den Test gewählt. Eine anschließende heuristische Evaluation trug potentielle Usability-Probleme der drei Online- Wörterbücher zusammen und stellte die Grundlage für die Thesenstellung des Usability-Tests dar. Der Test setzte sich aus zwei empirischen Teilen zusammen: Einem Aufgabenteil, den die Testperson für jedes der drei Online-Wörterbüchern einzeln bearbeiten und dabei die Testmethode des lauten Denkens anwenden musste und einem Post-Test- Fragebogen, der direkt nach dem Bearbeiten des jeweiligen Aufgabenkatalogs ausgefüllt wurde. Der gesamte Test wurde mit Morae, einer Software u. a. für Software- und Website- Usability-Tests, durchgeführt und ausgewertet.

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, 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.

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4193, 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=4193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:09:26

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 12:32:25

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4440, 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=4440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22