Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"OPAC"
  1. Furner, J.: On Recommending (2002) 0.09 
    0.09489456 = product of:
  0.15815759 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
    0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055919025 = score(doc=5243,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    By "recommending'' Furner refers to collaborative filtering where multiple user rankings of items are used to create a single new ranking for a user, or to a system itself generating rankings of items for its users. This would include document retrieval systems as a subset recommending systems in the second instance, but in the first would make document retrieval system and recommending system synonyms. Information seeking actions are classified either as evaluative (determining the worth of an item), recommending (expressing perceived worth), or informative (examining the content of an item). The task of the information retrieval system is to be to predict the particular ordering that the user would specify in a given context, given complete knowledge of the collection. Citations may be considered as the result of evaluative and recommending decisions by the author, and assigned index terms may be considered as the same sort of decisions by the indexer. The selection of relevant documents by a searcher from a list also involves evaluative and recommending decisions. This suggests that searchers should have the opportunity to bring multiple ranking techniques to bear.
  2. Chen, H.-M.; Cooper, M.D.: Stochastic modeling of usage patterns in a Web-based information system (2002) 0.04 
    0.044585004 = product of:
  0.11146251 = sum of:
    0.062146567 = weight(_text_:index in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062146567 = score(doc=577,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3344904 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
    0.049315944 = weight(_text_:system in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049315944 = score(doc=577,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36826712 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Users move from one state (or task) to another in an information system's labyrinth as they try to accomplish their work, and the amount of time they spend in each state varies. This article uses continuous-time stochastic models, mainly based on semi-Markov chains, to derive user state transition patterns (both in rates and in probabilities) in a Web-based information system. The methodology was demonstrated with 126,925 search sessions drawn from the transaction logs of the University of California's MELVYL® library catalog system (www.melvyLucop.edu). First, user sessions were categorized into six groups based on their similar use of the system. Second, by using a three-layer hierarchical taxonomy of the system Web pages, user sessions in each usage group were transformed into a sequence of states. All the usage groups but one have third-order sequential dependency in state transitions. The sole exception has fourth-order sequential dependency. The transition rates as well as transition probabilities of the semi-Markov model provide a background for interpreting user behavior probabilistically, at various levels of detail. Finally, the differences in derived usage patterns between usage groups were tested statistically. The test results showed that different groups have distinct patterns of system use. Knowledge of the extent of sequential dependency is beneficial because it allows one to predict a user's next move in a search space based on the past moves that have been made. It can also be used to help customize the design of the user interface to the system to facilitate interaction. The group CL6 labeled "knowledgeable and sophisticated usage" and the group CL7 labeled "unsophisticated usage" both had third-order sequential dependency and had the same most-frequently occurring search pattern: screen display, record display, screen display, and record display. The group CL8 called "highly interactive use with good search results" had fourth-order sequential dependency, and its most frequently occurring pattern was the same as CL6 and CL7 with one more screen display action added. The group CL13, called "known-item searching" had third-order sequential dependency, and its most frequently occurring pattern was index access, search with retrievals, screen display, and record display. Group CL14 called "help intensive searching," and CL18 called "relatively unsuccessful" both had thirdorder sequential dependency, and for both groups the most frequently occurring pattern was index access, search without retrievals, index access, and again, search without retrievals.
  3. Oberhauser, O.: Implementierung und Parametrisierung klassifikatorischer Recherchekomponenten im OPAC (2005) 0.04 
    0.04045806 = product of:
  0.0674301 = sum of:
    0.044399645 = weight(_text_:index in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044399645 = score(doc=3353,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.23897146 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
    0.016309716 = weight(_text_:system in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016309716 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
    0.0067207436 = product of:
      0.02016223 = sum of:
        0.02016223 = weight(_text_:22 in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02016223 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Das in den letzten Jahren wiedererwachte Interesse an der klassifikatorischen Erschließung und Recherche hat sich allem Anschein nach noch nicht ausreichend bis zu den Herstellern integrierter Bibliothekssysteme herumgesprochen. Wie wäre es sonst zu erklären, dass im OPAC-Modul eines führenden Systems wie Aleph 500 so gut wie keine Features für klassifikationsbasierte Recherchen zu erblicken sind? Tatsächlich finden wir heute einen im Vergleich zum einstigen System Bibos kaum veränderten Zustand vor: Notationen eines oder mehrerer Klassifikationssysteme können in einer durch MAB dafür bestimmten Kategorie (700, nebst Indikatoren) katalogisiert und dann recherchiert bzw. angezeigt werden. Doch welcher Benutzer weiß schon, was diese Notationen im einzelnen bedeuten? Wer macht sich die Mühe, dies selbst herauszufinden, um dann danach zu recherchieren? Hier liegt im wesentlich dasselbe Problem vor, das schon dem systematischen Zettelkatalog anhaftete und ihn zu einem zwar mühevoll erstellten, aber wenig genutzten Rechercheinstrument machte, das nur dann (zwangsläufig) angenommen wurde, wenn ein verbaler Sachkatalog fehlte. Nun könnte eingewandt werden, dass im Vergleich zu früher unter Aleph 500 wenigstens das Aufblättern von Indizes möglich sei, sodass im OPAC ein Index für die vergebenen Notationen angeboten werden kann (bzw. mehrere solche Indizes bei Verwendung von mehr als nur einem Klassifikationssystem). Gewiss, doch was bringt dem Uneingeweihten das Aufblättern des Notationsindex - außer einer alphabetischen Liste von kryptischen Codes? Weiter könnte man einwenden, dass es im Aleph-500-OPAC die so genannten Suchdienste ("services") gibt, mithilfe derer von bestimmten Elementen einer Vollanzeige hypertextuell weiternavigiert werden kann. Richtig, doch damit kann man bloß wiederum den Index aufblättern oder alle anderen Werke anzeigen lassen, die dieselbe Notationen - also einen Code, dessen Bedeutung meist unbekannt ist - aufweisen. Wie populär mag dieses Feature beim Publikum wohl sein? Ein anderer Einwand wäre der Hinweis auf das inzwischen vom Hersteller angebotene Thesaurus-Modul, das vermutlich auch für Klassifikationssysteme eingesetzt werden könnte. Doch wie viele Bibliotheken unseres Verbundes waren bisher bereit, für dieses Modul, das man eigentlich als Bestandteil des Basissystems erwarten könnte, gesondert zu bezahlen? Schließlich mag man noch einwenden, dass es im Gegensatz zur Bibos-Zeit nun die Möglichkeit gibt, Systematiken und Klassifikationen als Normdateien zu implementieren und diese beim Retrieval für verbale Einstiege in die klassifikatorische Recherche oder zumindest für die Veranschaulichung der Klassenbenennungen in der Vollanzeige zu nutzen. Korrekt - dies ist möglich und wurde sogar einst für die MSC (Mathematics Subject Classification, auch bekannt als "AMS-Klassifikation") versucht. Dieses Projekt, das noch unter der Systemversion 11.5 begonnen wurde, geriet jedoch nach einiger Zeit ins Stocken und fand bedauerlicherweise nie seinen Weg in die folgende Version (14.2). Mag auch zu hoffen sein, dass es unter der neuen Version 16 wieder weitergeführt werden kann, so weist dieses Beispiel doch auf die grundsätzliche Problematik des Normdatei-Ansatzes (zusätzlicher Aufwand, Kontinuität) hin. Zudem lohnt sich die Implementierung einer eigenen Normdatei 4 wohl nur bei einem größeren bzw. komplexen Klassifikationssystem, wogegen man im Falle kleinerer Systematiken kaum daran denken würde.
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 58(2005) H.1, S.22-37
  4. Markey, K.: Twenty-five years of end-user searching : part 2: future research directions (2007) 0.03 
    0.03477903 = product of:
  0.086947575 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
    0.046599183 = weight(_text_:system in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046599183 = score(doc=443,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3479797 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This is the second part of a two-part article that examines 25 years of published research findings on end-user searching of online information retrieval (IR) systems. In Part 1, it was learned that people enter a few short search statements into online IR systems. Their searches do not resemble the systematic approach of expert searchers who use the full range of IR-system functionality. Part 2 picks up the discussion of research findings about end-user searching in the context of current information retrieval models. These models demonstrate that information retrieval is a complex event, involving changes in cognition, feelings, and/or events during the information seeking process. The author challenges IR researchers to design new studies of end-user searching, collecting data not only on system-feature use, but on multiple search sessions and controlling for variables such as domain knowledge expertise and expert system knowledge. Because future IR systems designers are likely to improve the functionality of online IR systems in response to answers to the new research questions posed here, the author concludes with advice to these designers about retaining the simplicity of online IR system interfaces.
  5. Tennant, R.: Library catalogs : the wrong solution (2003) 0.03 
    0.02844725 = product of:
  0.071118124 = sum of:
    0.02691025 = weight(_text_:index in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02691025 = score(doc=1558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.14483857 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
    0.044207875 = weight(_text_:system in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044207875 = score(doc=1558,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.33012256 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    "MOST INTEGRATED library systems, as they are currently configured and used, should be removed from public view. Before I say why, let me be clean that I think the integrated library system serves a very important, albeit limited, role. An integrated library system should serve as a key piece of the infrastructure of a library, handling such tasks as ma terials acquisition, cataloging (including holdings, of course), and circulation. The integrated library system should be a complete and accurate recording of a local library's holdings. It should not be presented to users as the primary system for locating information. It fails badly at that important job. - Lack of content- The central problem of almost any library catalog system is that it typically includes only information about the books and journals held by a parficular library. Most do not provide access to joumal article indexes, web search engines, or even selective web directories like the Librarians' Index to the Internet. If they do offen such access, it is only via links to these services. The library catalog is far from onestop shopping for information. Although we acknowledge that fact to each other, we still treat it as if it were the best place in the universe to begin a search. Most of us give the catalog a place of great prominente an our web pages. But Information for each book is limited to the author, title, and a few subject headings. Seldom can book reviews, jacket summaries, recommendations, or tables of contents be found-or anything at all to help users determine if they want the material. - Lack of coverage - Most catalogs do not allow patrons to discover even all the books that are available to them. If you're lucky, your catalog may cover the collections of those libraries with which you have close ties-such as a regional network. But that leaves out all those items that could be requested via interlibrary loan. As Steve Coffman pointed out in his "Building Earth's Largest Library" article, we must show our users the universe that is open to them, highlight the items most accessible, and provide an estimate of how long it would take to obtain other items. - Inability to increase coverage - Despite some well-meaning attempts to smash everything of interest into the library catalog, the fact remains that most integrated library systems expect MARC records and MARC records only. This means that whatever we want to put into the catalog must be described using MARC and AACR2 (see "Marc Must Die," LJ 10/15/02, p. 26ff.). This is a barrier to dramatically increasing the scope of a catalog system, even if we decided to do it. How would you, for example, use the Open Archives Initiative Harvesting Protocol to crawl the bibliographic records of remote repositories and make them searchable within your library catalog? It can't be dope, and it shouldn't. The library catalog should be a record of a given library's holdings. Period.
    - User Interface hostility - Recently I used the Library catalogs of two public libraries, new products from two major library vendors. A link an one catalog said "Knowledge Portal," whatever that was supposed to mean. Clicking an it brought you to two choices: Z39.50 Bibliographic Sites and the World Wide Web. No public library user will have the faintest clue what Z39.50 is. The other catalog launched a Java applet that before long froze my web browser so badly I was forced to shut the program down. Pick a popular book and pretend you are a library patron. Choose three to five libraries at random from the lib web-cats site (pick catalogs that are not using your system) and attempt to find your book. Try as much as possible to see the system through the eyes of your patrons-a teenager, a retiree, or an older faculty member. You may not always like what you see. Now go back to your own system and try the same thing. - What should the public see? - Our users deserve an information system that helps them find all different kinds of resources-books, articles, web pages, working papers in institutional repositories-and gives them the tools to focus in an what they want. This is not, and should not be, the library catalog. It must communicate with the catalog, but it will also need to interface with other information systems, such as vendor databases and web search engines. What will such a tool look like? We are seeing the beginnings of such a tool in the current offerings of cross-database search tools from a few vendors (see "Cross-Database Search," LJ 10/15/01, p. 29ff). We are in the early stages of developing the kind of robust, userfriendly tool that will be required before we can pull our catalogs from public view. Meanwhile, we can begin by making what we have easier to understand and use."
  6. Weaver, M.: Contextual metadata: faceted schemas in virtual library communities (2007) 0.03 
    0.025459195 = product of:
  0.063647985 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the information needs of one user group, public library fiction readers, in order to reveal a design of an online community at the local level. Examination of user-generated metadata can reveal new approaches to information architecture. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review into behaviors of virtual communities; surveying public library readers regarding search behavior characteristics - the survey included a sample "tagging" exercise to determine whether public library communities could create meaningful metadata for retrieval purposes. Findings - The use of relevance as an indicator of tag quality is flawed: in a survey, public library readers "tagged" the novel The Da Vinci Code. The resulting collection of tags provided a richer description of the book than did the social book-related web site www.librarything.com. Tag collections can be broken down into different categories, each reflecting a different "facet" of the novel: character, plot, subject/topic, setting, and genre. Faceted structure to tags enables users to choose the context of the tag to the novel. Research limitations/implications - This research is relevant in the world of social networking sites, online communities, or any other such system where users generate descriptive metadata. Examination of such metadata can reveal facets, which can guide the architect/librarian in the design of a versatile architecture. Originality/value - This research resulted in a manifold design for a public-library-based online community that allowed for the full expression of users' information needs. This research introduces a faceted structure to current approaches for user-generated metadata, adding versatility to search terms.
  7. Chen, H.-M.; Cooper, M.D.: Using clustering techniques to detect usage patterns in a Web-based information system (2001) 0.02 
    0.024715079 = product of:
  0.061787695 = sum of:
    0.052099477 = weight(_text_:system in 6526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052099477 = score(doc=6526,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.38905317 = fieldWeight in 6526, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6526)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 6526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=6526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6526)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Different users of a Web-based information system will have different goals and different ways of performing their work. This article explores the possibility that we can automatically detect usage patterns without demographic information about the individuals. First, a set of 47 variables was defined that can be used to characterize a user session. The values of these variables were computed for approximately 257,000 sessions. Second, principal component analysis was employed to reduce the dimensions of the original data set. Third, a twostage, hybrid clustering method was proposed to categorize sessions into groups. Finally, an external criteriabased test of cluster validity was performed to verify the validity of the resulting usage groups (clusters). The proposed methodology was demonstrated and tested for validity using two independent samples of user sessions drawn from the transaction logs of the University of California's MELVYL® on-line library catalog system (www.melvyl.ucop.edu). The results indicate that there were six distinct categories of use in the MELVYL system: knowledgeable and sophisticated use, unsophisticated use, highly interactive use with good search performance, known-item searching, help-intensive searching, and relatively unsuccessful use. Their characteristics were interpreted and compared qualitatively. The analysis shows that each group had distinct patterns of use of the system, which justifies the methodology employed in this study
    Date
    29. 9.2001 18:36:03
  8. Poo, D.C.C.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Online Catalog Subject Searching (2009) 0.02 
    0.024021262 = product of:
  0.060053155 = sum of:
    0.048427295 = weight(_text_:system in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048427295 = score(doc=3851,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=3851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) is an information retrieval system characterized by short bibliographic records, mainly of books, journals, and audiovisual materials available in a particular library. This, coupled with a Boolean search interface and a heterogeneous user population with diverse needs, presents special problems for subject searching by end users. To perform effective subject searching in the OPAC system requires a wide range of knowledge and skills. Various approaches to improving the OPAC design for subject searching have been proposed and are reviewed in this entry. The trend toward Web-based OPAC interfaces and the developments in Internet and digital library technologies present fresh opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the OPAC system for subject searching.
    Date
    27. 8.2011 14:24:29
  9. Caro Castro, C.; Travieso Rodríguez, C.: Ariadne's thread : knowledge structures for browsing in OPAC's (2003) 0.02 
    0.023857819 = product of:
  0.059644546 = sum of:
    0.03139529 = weight(_text_:index in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03139529 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.16897833 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.028249256 = weight(_text_:system in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028249256 = score(doc=2768,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.21095149 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Subject searching is the most common but also the most conflictive searching for end user. The aim of this paper is to check how users expressions match subject headings and to prove if knowledge structure used in online catalogs enhances searching effectiveness. A bibliographic revision about difficulties in subject access and proposed methods to improve it is also presented. For the empirical analysis, transaction logs from two university libraries, online catalogs (CISNE and FAMA) were collected. Results show that more than a quarter of user queries are effective due to an alphabetical subject index approach and browsing through hypertextual links. 1. Introduction Since the 1980's, online public access catalogs (OPAC's) have become usual way to access bibliographic information. During the last two decades the technological development has helped to extend their use, making feasible the access for a whole of users that is getting more and more extensive and heterogeneous, and also to incorporate information resources in electronic formats and to interconnect systems. However, technology seems to have developed faster than our knowledge about the tasks where it has been applied and than the evolution of our capacities for adapting to it. The conceptual model of OPAC has been hardly modified recently, and for interacting with them, users still need to combine the same skills and basic knowledge than at the beginning of its introduction (Borgman, 1986, 2000): a) conceptual knowledge to translate the information need into an appropriate query because of a well-designed mental model of the system, b) semantic and syntactic knowledge to be able to implement that query (access fields, searching type, Boolean logic, etc.) and c) basic technical skills in computing. At present many users have the essential technical skills to make use, with more or less expertise, of a computer. This number is substantially reduced when it is referred to the conceptual, semantic and syntactic knowledge that is necessary to achieve a moderately satisfactory search. An added difficulty arises in subject searching, as users should concrete their unknown information needs in terms that the information retrieval system can understand. Many researches have focused an unskilled searchers' difficulties to enter an effective query. The mental models influence, users assumption about characteristics, structure, contents and operation of the system they interact with have been analysed (Dillon, 2000; Dimitroff, 2000). Another issue that implies difficulties is vocabulary: how to find the right terms to implement a query and to modify it as the case may be. Terminology and expressions characteristics used in searching (Bates, 1993), the match between user terms and the subject headings from the catalog (Carlyle, 1989; Drabensttot, 1996; Drabensttot & Vizine-Goetz, 1994), the incidence of spelling errors (Drabensttot and Weller, 1996; Ferl and Millsap, 1996; Walker and Jones, 1987), users problems
  10. Beccaria, M.; Scott, D.: Fac-Back-OPAC : an open source interface to your library system (2007) 0.02 
    0.023828931 = product of:
  0.059572328 = sum of:
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=2207,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2207, 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=2207)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Fac-Back-OPAC is a faceted back­ up OPAC. This advanced catalog offers features that compare favorably with the traditional catalogs for today's library systems. Fac-Back-OPAC represents the convergence of two prominent trends in library tools: the decoupling of discovery tools from the traditional integrated library system and the use of readily available open source components to rapidly produce leading-edge technology for meeting patron and library needs. Built on code that was originally developed by Casey Durfee in February 2007, Fac-Back-OPAC is available for no cost under an open source license to any library that wants to offer an advanced search interface or a backup catalog for its patrons.
    Date
    17. 8.2008 11:22:47
  11. Greifeneder, E.: Hilfe auf allen Ebenen : ein Beitrag zur Forschung über Online-Hilfen in OPACs (2008) 0.02 
    0.019801008 = product of:
  0.049502518 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
    0.030862844 = product of:
      0.046294264 = sum of:
        0.023251714 = weight(_text_:29 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023251714 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
        0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023042548 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1936, 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=1936)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Viele Benutzer haben Probleme im Umgang mit OPACs - das dokumentieren zahlreiche Usability-Studien in ausreichendem Maße. Benutzer benötigen also Hilfe, genauer: sie benötigen ein Online-Hilfesystem, das ihnen beim "Discovery", "Locate" und "Request"' von Dokumenten im OPAC unabhängig von den Öffnungszeiten der Bibliothek situationsgerechte Online-Hilfen anbietet. Mit dem Ausdruck "Online-Hilfe" assoziieren viele nur einen Fragezeichen-Button oder Module wie die sprechende Büroklammer der Microsoft-Office-Applikationen. Doch Online-Hilfe umfasst viel mehr, von der Rechtschreibkorrektur in Suchfeldern bis hin zu Recommender-Systemen. Definieren lässt sich Online-Hilfe als ein computergestütztes Werkzeug im virtuellen Raum, das an kritischen Stellen den Nutzer bei der erfolgreichen Durchführung einer Aktion unterstützt und/oder kontextbezogene Informationen gibt. "Kritisch" für die erfolgreiche Nutzung eines Angebotes sind solche Stellen, "an denen bei den Nutzern ein jeweils spezifisches oder differenziertes Wissen vorausgesetzt wird"2. Eine einzelne Hilfe, etwa ein erklärender Text, kann dem Benutzer nicht auf allen Ebenen der Interaktion mit dem System helfen. Deshalb ist es notwendig, mehrere Online-Hilfen zu kombinieren; man spricht dann von einem Online-Hilfesystem. Online-Hilfe ist ein wichtiges Forschungsthema, doch ist es vor allem im Bibliotheksbereich nur mangelnd theoretisch fundiert. Eine präzise Unterscheidung und Klassifikation der verschiedenen Arten von Online-Hilfen ist dabei eine notwendige Grundlage für weiterführende Analysen. Der vorliegende Beitrag erläutert die einzelnen Arten von Online-Hilfen in OPACs anhand der von der Autorin entwickelten Klassifikation nach Funktionalitäten3. Es werden vier Arten von Online-Hilfen unterschieden: erklärende Hilfen, aufbereitende/visuelle Hilfen, sucheinschränkende Hilfen und sucherweiternde Hilfen. Während die ersten beiden am Suchergebnis nichts ändern, beeinflussen sowohl die einschränkenden als auch die erweiternden Hilfen das Suchergebnis. Abbildung 1 zeigt die Klassifikation mit ihrer weiteren Untergliederung. Die technische Komplexität der angeführten Online-Hilfen nimmt dabei - in grober Näherung - von oben nach unten zu.
    Date
    22. 6.2008 13:29:15
  12. Thomas, D.H.: ¬The effect of interface design on item selection in an online catalog (2001) 0.02 
    0.017424472 = product of:
  0.04356118 = sum of:
    0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03588033 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.0076808496 = product of:
      0.023042548 = sum of:
        0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023042548 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The effect that content and layout of bibliographic displays had on the ability of end-users to process catalog information was tested using a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design. Participants were asked to perform two related tasks during the course of the experiment. In the first task, they were asked to select a set of items that they would examine further for a hypothetical paper they must write, using a simulated online catalog to make their assessments of relevance. In the second task, they were asked to examine 20 bibliographic records, decide whether they would choose to examine these items further on the shelf, and identify the data elements that they used to formulate their relevance decision. One group viewed bibliographic records on an interface similar to current online catalogs, one that used data labels and contained data elements commonly found. A second group viewed these records on an interface in which the labels had been removed, but the data elements were the same as those in the first. The third group viewed these records on a labeled display that included enhanced data elements on the brief record display. The final group viewed these records with the same brief record data elements as the third group, but with the labels removed, using ISBD and AACR2 punctuation standards. For the first task, participants using enhanced brief screen interfaces viewed more brief screens and fewer full screens than their counterparts. Screen durations for the second 10 screens were found to have dropped from those of the first 10 screens. Statistical analyses comparing demographic variables to the screen frequencies uncovered many significant differences. Participants using the enhanced-content interfaces made fewer selections from index and full screens, and more selections from brief screens. For the second task, participants who used enhanced-content interfaces were able to make some sort of relevance judgment more frequently than those who used standard-content interfaces.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Khoo, C.S.G.; Wan, K.-W.: ¬A simple relevancy-ranking strategy for an interface to Boolean OPACs (2004) 0.01 
    0.013988 = product of:
  0.03497 = sum of:
    0.028249256 = weight(_text_:system in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028249256 = score(doc=2509,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.21095149 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.0067207436 = product of:
      0.02016223 = sum of:
        0.02016223 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02016223 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    "Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."
    Source
    Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120
  14. Cooper, M.D.: Usage patterns of a Web-based library catalog (2001) 0.01 
    0.013195123 = product of:
  0.032987807 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=5584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=5584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article reports on a model and patterns of use of a library catalog that can be accessed through the Internet. Three categories of users are identified. individuals who perform a search of the catalog, tourists who look only at opening pages of the library catalog's site, and Web spiders that come to the site to obtain pages for indexing the Web. A number of types of use activities are also identified, and can be grouped with the presearch phase (which takes place before any searching begins): the search phase, the display phase (in which users display the results of their search), and phases in which users make errors, ask the system for help or assistance, and take other actions. An empirical investigation of patterns of use of a university Web-based library catalog was conducted for 479 days. During that period, the characteristics of about 2.5 million sessions were recorded and analyzed, and usage trends were identified. Of the total, 62% of the sessions were for users who performed a search, 27% were from spiders, and 11% were for tourists. During the study period, the average search session lasted about 5 minutes when the study began and had increased to about 10 minutes 16 months later. An average search consisted of about 1.5 presearch actions lasting about 25 seconds, about 5.3 display actions, and 2.5 searches per session. The latter two categories are in the range of 35-37 seconds per session each. There were major differences in usage (number of searches, search time, number of display actions, and display time), depending upon the database accessed
    Date
    29. 9.2001 13:59:04
  15. Slone, D.J.: ¬The influence of mental models and goals on search patterns during Web interaction (2002) 0.01 
    0.013195123 = product of:
  0.032987807 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=5229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=5229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Thirty-one patrons, who were selected by Slone to provide a range of age and experience, agreed when approached while using the catalog of the Wake County library system to try searching via the Internet. Fifteen searched the Wake County online catalog in this manner and 16 searched the World Wide Web, including that catalog. They were subjected to brief pre-structured taped interviews before and after their searches and observed during the searching process resulting in a log of behaviors, comments, pages accessed, and time spent. Data were analyzed across participants and categories. Web searches were characterized as linking, URL, search engine, within a site domain, and searching a web catalog; and participants by the number of these techniques used. Four used only one, 13 used two, 11 used three, two used four, and one all five. Participant experience was characterized as never used, used search engines, browsing experience, email experience, URL experience, catalog experience, and finally chat room/newsgroup experience. Sixteen percent of the participants had never used the Internet, 71% had used search engines, 65% had browsed, 58% had used email, 39% had used URLs, 39% had used online catalogs, and 32% had used chat rooms. The catalog was normally consulted before the web, where both were used, and experience with an online catalog assists in web use. Scrolling was found to be unpopular and practiced halfheartedly.
    Date
    21. 7.2006 11:26:29
  16. Oberhauser, O.: Card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) : an international survey (2003) 0.01 
    0.012558117 = product of:
  0.06279058 = sum of:
    0.06279058 = weight(_text_:index in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06279058 = score(doc=4179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) - online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards and more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive altematives to a full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. The article presents a Web page dedicated to CIPACs, identifies and describes four main categories of interface software for such catalogues, and provides a comparative overview of 50 CIPACs in 11 countries, looking at aspects such as geographical distribution, growth and size, software, number of catalogues, processing and index creation, navigation, image formats, and other features.
  17. Breeding, M.: ¬The birth of a new generation of library interfaces (2007) 0.01 
    0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 2198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=2198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 2198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2198)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Over the last couple of years, there has been a surge of activity in the library automation arena directed toward improved user interfaces. As Breeding looks at the events and activities that have transpired over the last year or so, Breeding sees an incredible amount of progress in creating interfaces that help librarians compete better in an ever more crowded landscape of information providers. It's strategically important for libraries to have technologies in place that will optimize delivery of content and services in the context of today's Web. Breeding believes that failure to make progress in this area can foster a creep of irrelevancy as potential users increasingly rely on information resources provided by entities other than libraries.
  18. Schallier, W.: On the razor's edge : between local and overall needs in knowledge organization (2004) 0.01 
    0.010556099 = product of:
  0.026390247 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
    0.0077505717 = product of:
      0.023251714 = sum of:
        0.023251714 = weight(_text_:29 in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023251714 = score(doc=2665,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    1. One Institution, one catalogue, one solution? K.U.Leuven University Library has a decentralised structure consisting of several department libraries and one central library. It is part of LIBIS-net, which is the biggest network of academic libraries in Belgium. In this network, maintaining the balance between local and overall needs presents a constant challenge. Standards and overall rules in cataloguing are indispensable for permitting information exchange within and outside the network. On the other hand, overall solutions do not necessarily render the best service to the user of a specific library. This is especially the case for subject cataloguing. It is difficult, and perhaps unreasonable, to convince a department library to use a generally accepted thesaurus like LCSH, if the users are familiar with a local classification that is much better adapted to the collection. The DOBIS/LIBIS library system of K.U.Leuven offered a technical solution for the conflict between overall and local needs. The main part of the bibliographic description was stored an the overall level and was visible for the whole network. For subject cataloguing this was the case for UDC, LCSH and McSH. A UDC authority file was built containing UDC codes linked to descriptors in different languages (Dutch, English and French). The authority file was linked to the UDC codes used in the bibliographic descriptions. This permitted searching by either UDC codes or verbal terms. LCSH were regularly and automatically uploaded in the catalogue to enrich the bibliographic descriptions. Finally, our Library of Biomedical Sciences used McSH. Local information, like thesauri and classifications exclusively used in a specific library, were stored in local files ("local keywords") and could only be seen by that library (up to branch level). For many years, this local information posed no difficulties. 27.04% of all documents and 38.16% of those younger than 1992 have local keywords
    Date
    29. 8.2004 17:37:14
  19. Slone, D.J.: ¬A bird's eye view of cross-platform web interaction (2005) 0.01 
    0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=4535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This exploratory study sets out to describe the ways in which end-users exchanged information between the web and a web online catalog, how they searched one device based on what they knew about the other, and their experiences in navigating between the two devices. Design/methodology/approach - Thirty-one participants were observed searching the web or a web online catalog. After the observations, an interview guide was used to ask targeted questions. Findings - The findings suggest that people familiar with the use of traditional online catalogs were more comfortable using web tools than those who lacked online catalog experience. People who had recent web experience expected online catalog searching to be similar to web searching. However, drawing too close an association between the two systems sometimes caused difficulties when the searching protocols varied, like keyword searching versus selecting an index. Research limitations/implications - Some limitations of the study include a small sampling size, varied responses to interview questions, obtrusive procedures, and lack of generalizability to groups or settings dissimilar from the one in this study. Originality/value - This study provides a rare look into the challenges faced by a diverse group of public library users on the web. It is instructive for practicing librarians and researchers.
  20. Hildreth, C.R.: Are Web-based OPACs more effective retrieval systems than their conventional predecessors? : an experimental study (2000) 0.01 
    0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The World Wide Web (simplified here to "Web") is well-known for its "point and click" graphical user interface (GUI) and hyperlink search and navigate capabilities. When OPACs are placed in this operational context, users can easily hyperlink from a bibliographic display to related search terms, class marks, or bibliographic records. This hyperlinking capability is not available in most conventional text-based OPACs. As more and more users undertake their searches on Web-based information retrieval systems such as OPACs, it is natural to ask, "Are Web-based OPACs more effective retrieval systems than their conventional predecessors?" This paper presents the findings of an experimental study which compared users' search performance, assessments of ease of use, and satisfaction with search results after use of a Web OPAC or its conventional counterpart. The primary questions addressed by this research center on the influence of two experimental factors, OPAC search interface style and search task level of difficulty, on the dependent variables: actual search performance, perceptions of ease of use, and user assessments of satisfaction with search results. It was hypothesized that Web OPACs would be assessed as easier to use and that they would outperform conventional OPACs when measured by actual search results and users' levels of satisfaction with search results. Web OPAC searchers outperformed Text OPAC searchers, but search task level of difficulty is a major determinant of search success. The study also found little association between searchers' level of satisfaction with results and actual search performance

Authors

Languages

  • e 40
  • d 22
  • i 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 59
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • x 2
  • b 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes