Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03297302 = product of:
  0.06594604 = sum of:
    0.06594604 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to critically deconstruct the term engagement as it applies to peoples' experiences with technology. Through an extensive, critical multidisciplinary literature review and exploratory study of users of Web searching, online shopping, Webcasting, and gaming applications, we conceptually and operationally defined engagement. Building on past research, we conducted semistructured interviews with the users of four applications to explore their perception of being engaged with the technology. Results indicate that engagement is a process comprised of four distinct stages: point of engagement, period of sustained engagement, disengagement, and reengagement. Furthermore, the process is characterized by attributes of engagement that pertain to the user, the system, and user-system interaction. We also found evidence of the factors that contribute to nonengagement. Emerging from this research is a definition of engagement - a term not defined consistently in past work - as a quality of user experience characterized by attributes of challenge, positive affect, endurability, aesthetic and sensory appeal, attention, feedback, variety/novelty, interactivity, and perceived user control. This exploratory work provides the foundation for future work to test the conceptual model in various application areas, and to develop methods to measure engaging user experiences.

Date

21. 3.2008 13:39:22

0.026378417 = product of:
  0.052756835 = sum of:
    0.052756835 = sum of:
      0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024522282 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Browsing is considered to be unstructured and human-driven, although not a cognitively intensive process. It is conducted using systems that facilitate considerable user-system interactivity. Cued by the content, people immerse themselves in a topic of interest and meander from topic to topic while concurrently recognising interesting and informative information en route. They seem to seek and gather information in a purposeless, illogical and indiscriminate manner. Typical examples of these ostensibly random acts are scanning a non-fiction book, examining the morning newspaper, perusing the contents of a business report and scavenging the World Wide Web. Often the result is the acquisition of new information, the rejection or confirmation of an idea, or the genesis of new, perhaps not-wholly-formed thoughts about a topic. Noteworthy about this approach is that people explore information without having consciously structured queries or explicit goals. This form of passive information interaction behaviour is defined as acquiring and gathering information while scanning an information space without a specific goal in mind (Waterworth & Chignell, 1991; Toms, 1997), and for the purposes of this study, is called browsing. Traditionally, browsing is thought of in two ways: as a physical process - the action taken when one scans a list, a document, or a set of linked information nodes (e.g., Fox & Palay, 1979; Thompson & Croft, 1989; Ellis, 1989), and as a conceptual process, information seeking when the goal is ill-defined (e.g., Cove & Walsh, 1987). Browsing is also combined with searching in an integrated information-seeking process for retrieving information (e.g., Ellis, 1989; Belkin, Marchetti & Cool, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Chang, 1995). Each of these cases focuses primarily on seeking information when the objective ranges from fuzzy to explicit.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:44:47

0.024233207 = product of:
  0.048466414 = sum of:
    0.048466414 = product of:
      0.09693283 = sum of:
        0.09693283 = weight(_text_:web in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09693283 = score(doc=2565,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, we compare a search tool, TOPIC, with three other widely used tools that retrieve information from the Web: AltaVista, Google, and Lycos. These tools use different techniques for outputting and ranking Web sites: external link structure (TOPIC and Google) and semantic content analysis (AltaVista and Lycos). TOPIC purports to output, and highly rank within its hit list, reputable Web sites for searched topics. In this study, 80 participants reviewed the output (i.e., highly ranked sites) from each tool and assessed the quality of retrieved sites. The 4800 individual assessments of 240 sites that represent 12 topics indicated that Google tends to identify and highly rank significantly more reputable Web sites than TOPIC, which, in turn, outputs more than AltaVista and Lycos, but this was not consistent from topic to topic. Metrics derived from reputation research were used in the assessment and a factor analysis was employed to identify a key factor, which we call 'repute'. The results of this research include insight into the factors that Web users consider in formulating perceptions of Web site reputation, and insight into which search tools are outputting reputable sites for Web users. Our findings, we believe, have implications for Web users and suggest the need for future research to assess the relationship between Web page characteristics and their perceived reputation.

0.013004904 = product of:
  0.026009807 = sum of:
    0.026009807 = product of:
      0.052019615 = sum of:
        0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 2534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052019615 = score(doc=2534,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2534, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We introduce WiIRE, a prototype system for conducting interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments via the Internet. We conceived Wi IRE to increase validity while streamlining procedures and adding efficiencies to the conduct of IIR experiments. The system incorporates password-controlled access, online questionnaires, study instructions and tutorials, conditional interface assignment, and conditional query assignment as well as provision for data collection. As an initial evaluation, we used WiIRE inhouse to conduct a Web-based IIR experiment using an external search engine with customized search interfaces and the TREC 11 Interactive Track search queries. Our evaluation of the prototype indicated significant cost efficiencies in the conduct of IIR studies, and additionally had some novel findings about the human perspective: about half participants would have preferred some personal contact with the researcher, and participants spent a significantly decreasing amount of time on tasks over the course of a session.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=1731,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1731, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand the needs of humanists with respect to information and communication technology (ICT) in order to prescribe the design of an e-humanist's workbench. Design/methodology/approach - A web-based survey comprising over 60 questions gathered the following data from 169 humanists: profile of the humanist, use of ICT in teaching, e-texts, text analysis tools, access to and use of primary and secondary sources, and use of collaboration and communication tools. Findings - Humanists conduct varied forms of research and use multiple techniques. They rely on the availability of inexpensive, quality-controlled e-texts for their research. The existence of primary sources in digital form influences the type of research conducted. They are unaware of existing tools for conducting text analyses, but expressed a need for better tools. Search engines have replaced the library catalogue as the key access tool for sources. Research continues to be solitary with little collaboration among scholars. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on a self-selected sample of humanists who responded to a web-based survey. Future research needs to examine the work of the scholar at a more detailed level, preferably through observation and/or interviewing. Practical implications - The findings support a five-part framework that could serve as the basis for the design of an e-humanist's workbench. Originality/value - The paper examines the needs of the humanist, founded on an integration of information science research and humanities computing for a more comprehensive understanding of the humanist at work.

0.008823298 = product of:
  0.017646596 = sum of:
    0.017646596 = product of:
      0.03529319 = sum of:
        0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03529319 = score(doc=5256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 14:28:55

0.008823298 = product of:
  0.017646596 = sum of:
    0.017646596 = product of:
      0.03529319 = sum of:
        0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03529319 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:16:14

0.008823298 = product of:
  0.017646596 = sum of:
    0.017646596 = product of:
      0.03529319 = sum of:
        0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03529319 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 4.2015 19:31:22