Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

0.07727912 = product of:
  0.15455824 = sum of:
    0.15455824 = sum of:
      0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09808913 = score(doc=2905,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056469105 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Artikel betrachtet anhand einer Studie zum Benutzerverhalten bei der Online-Katalogrecherche den gegenwärtigen Stellenwert und das zukünftige Potential der Web-OPACs. Dabei werden zunächst die Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Logfile-Analyse sowie qualitativer Benutzertests erörtert, bevor aktuelle Entwicklungen der Webtechnologie, die unter den Schlagworten Web 2.0 und Web 3.0 propagiert werden, im Zusammenhang mit der Online-Recherche und der Entwicklung neuartiger Suchverfahren kurz diskutiert werden.

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.04655721 = product of:
  0.09311442 = sum of:
    0.09311442 = sum of:
      0.064879864 = weight(_text_:web in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064879864 = score(doc=1447,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.38159183 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.03863956 = product of:
  0.07727912 = sum of:
    0.07727912 = sum of:
      0.049044564 = weight(_text_:web in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049044564 = score(doc=2672,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, 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=2672)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die verschiedenen unter dem Schlagwort "Bibliothek 2.0" zusammengefassten neuen Dienste und Komponenten wie etwa Wikis, Tagging-Systeme und Blogs sind seit einiger Zeit in aller Munde und dringen über Fortbildungsveranstaltungen, Konferenzen und Publikationsorgane immer mehr in das deutschsprachige Bibliothekswesen ein. Darüber hinaus gibt es öffentlich geförderte Projekte zu bibliothekarischen 2.0-Themen und sogar ein Projekt, welches sich explizit einen 2.0-Katalog zum Ziel gesetzt hat. In diesem Beitrag soll es nun nicht um die Vorstellung eines weiteren Projekts im Dienste des Themas "Bibliothek 2.0" gehen, ebenso hat dieser Beitrag nicht den Anspruch, die Diskussion über die möglichen Vor- oder Nachteile dieser Thematik auf theoretischer Ebene voranzubringen. Vielmehr wird hier ganz praktisch aus Sicht einer kleinen Universitätsbibliothek, der Bibliothek der Helmut-SchmidtUniversität (HSU) - Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, aufgezeigt, wie das Thema "Web/Bibliothek 2.0" durchaus neben und in Unterstützung von weiteren nutzerorientierten Servicedienstleistungen auch in kleinen Schritten positive Auswirkungen für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer haben kann. Der Focus wird dabei auf dem zentralen Arbeits- und Rechercheinstrument der Bibliotheksnutzer liegen, dem Bibliothekskatalog. Speziell wird es darum gehen, wie auf relativ einfache Art und Weise durch Anwendung verschiedener Elemente anderer Dienste und Anbieter sowie das Aufgreifen von Schnittstellen und wenig aufwendigen Verbesserungen, Mehrwert für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer zu erzielen ist. Ein zentraler Begriff bei fast allen Überlegungen, die im Zusammenhang mit der Verbesserung und Anreicherung des Kataloges stehen, war und ist das Thema "Mash-up". Unter Mashups - ein Begriff, der gerade im Zusammenhang mit dem Thema "Web 2.0" im deutschsprachigen Raum eingeführt und adaptiert wurde - wird das Verfahren bezeichnet, Web-Inhalte neu zu kombinieren. Dabei nutzt man bei und für Mashups offene "APIs" (Application Programming Interfaces, also offene Programmierschnittstellen), die von anderen Web-Anwendungen zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38

0.033809613 = product of:
  0.06761923 = sum of:
    0.06761923 = sum of:
      0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042913996 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.024705233 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024705233 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.03297302 = product of:
  0.06594604 = sum of:
    0.06594604 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

0.026378417 = product of:
  0.052756835 = sum of:
    0.052756835 = sum of:
      0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024522282 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 323, 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=323)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 323, 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=323)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2007 11:19:21

0.026279347 = product of:
  0.052558694 = sum of:
    0.052558694 = product of:
      0.10511739 = sum of:
        0.10511739 = weight(_text_:web in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10511739 = score(doc=6110,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.6182494 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Online catalog users search predominately by subject, yet it is the most difficult search to perform and retrieves records only about one-half of the time. A new generation of OPACs (online public access catalogs) is on the horizon, the Web-based OPAC. Web-based OPACs allow users to access online catalogs through a WWW (World Wide Web) interface and have the potential to improve patrons' ability to search by subject. But will this potential be realized? This article proposes some basic guidelines that can be incorporated into Web-based OPAC interface design to help users perform subject searches more effectively, and evaluates how well Web-based OPACs currently in operation address the subject searching problem

0.024522282 = product of:
  0.049044564 = sum of:
    0.049044564 = product of:
      0.09808913 = sum of:
        0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09808913 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.024522282 = product of:
  0.049044564 = sum of:
    0.049044564 = product of:
      0.09808913 = sum of:
        0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 6745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09808913 = score(doc=6745,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 6745, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It's clear that today's typical library users are Web-sawy and have very high expectations. Librarians need to offer interfaces on Web sites that match or exceed those found on the commercial Web. Paired with high-quality content that's selected and created by librarians, a state-of-the-art Web interface is a compelling destination for users.

0.024522282 = product of:
  0.049044564 = sum of:
    0.049044564 = product of:
      0.09808913 = sum of:
        0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09808913 = score(doc=678,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Diese Arbeit besteht im Wesentlichen aus zwei Teilen: Der erste Teil beinhaltet eine Einführung in den Begriff Web 2.0 und in die allgemeinen Rahmenbedingungen der zugehörigen technischen Entwicklungen. Des Weiteren werden exemplarische Techniken vorgestellt, die Web 2.0 zugeschrieben werden können sowie einige beispielhafte Anwendungen. Im zweiten Teil wird die Diskussion um Bibliothek 2.0 aufgegriffen, um anschließend näher auf Web 2.0 Techniken in Bibliothekskatalogen bzw. den OPAC 2.0 einzugehen. Verschiedene Techniken, die im OPAC 2.0 Anwendung finden können, werden diskutiert und zuletzt werden einige beispielhafte OPACs vorgestellt.

0.023081116 = product of:
  0.046162233 = sum of:
    0.046162233 = sum of:
      0.021456998 = weight(_text_:web in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021456998 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
      0.024705233 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024705233 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1429, 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=1429)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält Beiträge von: FUGMANN, R.: Obstacles to progress in mechanized subject access and the necessity of a paradigm change; TELL, B.: On MARC and natural text searching: a review of Pauline Cochrane's inspirational thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters; KING, D.W.: Blazing new trails: in celebration of an audacious career; FIDEL, R.: The user-centered approach; SMITH, L.: Subject access in interdisciplinary research; DRABENSTOTT, K.M.: Web search strategies; LAM, V.-T.: Enhancing subject access to monographs in Online Public Access Catalogs: table of contents added to bibliographic records; JOHNSON, E.H.: Objects for distributed heterogeneous information retrieval

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.022989638 = product of:
  0.045979276 = sum of:
    0.045979276 = product of:
      0.09195855 = sum of:
        0.09195855 = weight(_text_:web in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09195855 = score(doc=4535,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.02167484 = product of:
  0.04334968 = sum of:
    0.04334968 = product of:
      0.08669936 = sum of:
        0.08669936 = weight(_text_:web in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08669936 = score(doc=113,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.02167484 = product of:
  0.04334968 = sum of:
    0.04334968 = product of:
      0.08669936 = sum of:
        0.08669936 = weight(_text_:web in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08669936 = score(doc=2251,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Orientiert an den Anforderungen der Bibliotheksbenutzer, hat BOND nun eine PremiumVersion des Web-Opacs entwickelt. Ziel dabei war es, das Angebot der Bibliothek für ihre LeserInnen noch attraktiver zu gestalten. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei das tatsächliche Informationsverhalten der Bibliotheksbenutzer. Mit dem neuen Web-Opac Premium werden Informationen kanalisiert und so aufbereitet, dass die LeserInnen sie noch schneller und bequemer im Zugriffhaben. Neben den Standard WebOpac-Funktionen (recherchieren, verlängern, vorbestellen, etc.) ist der neue Web-Opac Premium daher zusätzlich mit zahlreichen nützlichen Web-Portalfunktionen gespickt. Diese ermöglichen der Bibliothek, ihren LeserInnen ganz individuell gewünschte Informationen und eine Vielzahl attraktiver Services anzubieten. Beispiele für die Portalfunktionen: Mit dem Web-Opac Premium können die Leser einfach und übersichtlich in hochwertigen Allgemein- und Fach-Lexika suchen. Jeder Benutzer kann sich ein persönliches Interessen-Profil selbst erstellen. So wird er gesondert auf die für ihn interessanten Medien und Informationen hingewiesen. Das persönliche Profil zeigt unter anderem auch entliehene Medien, Fristen und Gebühren. Als weiteren Service kann die Bibliothek automatisch Medien-Listen mit personalisierten Empfehlungen für ihre Benutzer (je nach Interessen-Profil) erstellen. Über eine Verwaltungsoberfläche kann die Bibliothek zudem globale Profile festlegen, mit denen zum Beispiel Erwachsene andere Informationen im Zugriff haben als Kinder oder wiederum andere als Mitarbeiter. Über diese Verwaltungsoberfläche können auch kinderleicht attraktive Informationsquellen (kommentierte Linklisten, gestaltete Informationsseiten [HTML], Veranstaltungskalender, Neuigkeiten, Diskussionsforen etc.) eingebunden und aktualisiert werden. Der Web-Opac Premium lässt sich durch zusätzliche Web-Module erweitern. So zum Beispiel durch WebGate, den Zugang zur DigiBib (Digitale Bibliothek des HBZ), und durch SpiderSearch, den grafischen Assoziativ-Opac. So kann sich jede Bibliothek ihr individuelles »Informationszentrum Bibliothek« bauen. - Weitere Informationen bei BOND, Telefon 0 63 24/9612311, oder E-Mail <vertrieb@ bond-online.de>."

0.02167484 = product of:
  0.04334968 = sum of:
    0.04334968 = product of:
      0.08669936 = sum of:
        0.08669936 = weight(_text_:web in 2919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08669936 = score(doc=2919,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 2919, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das Web 2.0 hat auch bei Bibliotheksnutzern zu veränderten Erwartungshaltungen an bibliothekarische Online-Angebote wie die Kataloge geführt. Diese waren lange Zeit statische Nachweisinstrumente, die heutzutage über das Angebot reiner Bestandsverzeichnisse hinausgehend verschiedene Web 2.0-Funktionalitäten sowie Zusatzinformationen mittels Kataloganreicherung integrierten sollten, um den Erwartungen der Nutzer zu genügen. Die Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage unter Nutzern einer Großstadtbibliothek unterstreichen dies: die Nutzer wünschen sich vielfältige Browsingmöglichkeiten, Google-ähnliche Suchmöglichkeiten, zusätzliche Inhalte und ein personalisier-bares Angebot. Welche Funktionen und Inhalte sollte ein Bibliothekskatalog im Zeitalter des Web 2.0 bieten? Am Beispiel der Stadtbücherei Frankfurt wird dargestellt wie Prinzipien des Web 2.0 - u.a. Nutzerfreundlichkeit und Kollaboration - auf das Online-Angebot übertragbar sind, ohne dabei den Personalaufwand, die rechtliche Absicherung der Bibliothek und Fragen der technischen Implementierung zu vergessen.

Content

Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ., Masterarbeit, 2008 u.d.T.: Welche Funktionen und Inhalte sollte ein Bibliothekskatalog im Zeitalter des Web 2.0 bieten?

RSWK

Online-Katalog / World Wide Web 2.0 / Hochschulschrift

Subject

Online-Katalog / World Wide Web 2.0 / Hochschulschrift

0.021456998 = product of:
  0.042913996 = sum of:
    0.042913996 = product of:
      0.08582799 = sum of:
        0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08582799 = score(doc=768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021456998 = product of:
  0.042913996 = sum of:
    0.042913996 = product of:
      0.08582799 = sum of:
        0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08582799 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02123692 = product of:
  0.04247384 = sum of:
    0.04247384 = product of:
      0.08494768 = sum of:
        0.08494768 = weight(_text_:web in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08494768 = score(doc=2593,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this lecture, Dr. Bates summarizes the research she recently conducted in her role as a Principal Investigator for the Library of Congress Action Plan on Bibliographic Control of Web Resources. Her investigations focused on three particular topics: User access vocabulary, Links among bibliographic families, and Staging of access to resources in the interface. From each of these perspectives, she shares her recommendations on how to achieve enhanced access to and display of records for selected Web resources across multiple systems.

Footnote

Vortrag, anläßlich: Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium: confronting the challenges of networked resources and the Web

0.018770961 = product of:
  0.037541922 = sum of:
    0.037541922 = product of:
      0.075083844 = sum of:
        0.075083844 = weight(_text_:web in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075083844 = score(doc=5229,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01839171 = product of:
  0.03678342 = sum of:
    0.03678342 = product of:
      0.07356684 = sum of:
        0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 6143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356684 = score(doc=6143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6143, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)