260 Reading Assignment : User Interfaces of IRs
Evaluation of Interfaces for IRS: Modelling End-User Searching Behaviour / Victoria Manglano, Micheline Beaulieu and Stephen Robertson
Manglano, V., Beaulieu, M, & Robertson, S. (1998). Evaluation of Interfaces for IRS: Modelling End-User Searching Behaviour. BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_ir98_paper7.pdf.
Abstract:
The research describes the study performed on the searching behaviour of end-users and how it is affected by interface design. It focused on qualitative data gathering and heavily relies on thinkaloud protocols (TAP-where users are asked to say whatever they are looking at, thinking, doing, and feeling, as they go about their task). 65 end-users were observed searching a bibliographic database (Medline) in their natural setting. The two most commonly used commercial versions of Medline were selected as experimental variable (OVID for Windows and WinSPIRS)- both use an underlying Boolean system and a Windows-based interface, but present fundamental differences in terms of the use and the presentation of searching tools and results presentation.
Application / Implication of what I've learned to my work/to me as a person:
Being equipped with at least basic knowledge on how UIs of IRs affect its users in their information seeking will benefit me. I may be able to assess how a specific IR is helping me with my information needs and how I can address its deficiency effectively.
Manglano, V., Beaulieu, M, & Robertson, S. (1998). Evaluation of Interfaces for IRS: Modelling End-User Searching Behaviour. BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_ir98_paper7.pdf.
Abstract:
The research describes the study performed on the searching behaviour of end-users and how it is affected by interface design. It focused on qualitative data gathering and heavily relies on thinkaloud protocols (TAP-where users are asked to say whatever they are looking at, thinking, doing, and feeling, as they go about their task). 65 end-users were observed searching a bibliographic database (Medline) in their natural setting. The two most commonly used commercial versions of Medline were selected as experimental variable (OVID for Windows and WinSPIRS)- both use an underlying Boolean system and a Windows-based interface, but present fundamental differences in terms of the use and the presentation of searching tools and results presentation.
Marchionini's model of information seeking (1995) was used as a framework. The results showed that there are some discrepancies between this model and the behaviour observed. The results of the comparison of searching behaviour with the two systems have shown some fundamental differences, but also have provided some areas of similarities in behaviour which seem to indicate that there could be some genuine end-user characteristics which are independent of system and interface design.
Three Things I learned from the article:
1. Different user interface (UI) may produce significant behavioral differences on subject search, intersect, presentation of results, and guidance on the search stages and reformulation aids.
2. The stages of Marchionini's information seeking behavior model namely: a) Problem recognition and acceptance; b) Problem definition; c) Search system selection; d) Query formulation; e) Query execution; f) Examination of results; g) Extract information; h) Reflection/Iteration/Termination. The study generated another information seeking behavior approach with slight addition/deduction in Marchionini's (1. Selection of database or dataset (go to 2.1.); 2. Search - 2.1. Initial Search (go to 3 or 4 or 5), 2.2. Search Reformulation (go to 3 or 4); 3. Evaluation of number of results - 3.1. The system provides search results (back to 2.2., or go to 4 or 5), 3.2. 0 hits results (back to 2.2.); 4. Intersect and Limit or Weight (go to 5 or back to 2.2.); 5. View (Go to 6); 6. Selection of documents to print or save (back to 1 or 2.2. or go to 7); 7. Stop).
3. The study shows that users are still more inclined in using textword search rather than subject search. This might be caused by Negative Transfer Effect (when a learned behavior interferes with a present adaptive response to a similar situation). The issue of Negative Transfer Effect should be studied further in IR, specially in the current environment of increasing use of IR systems and tools by end-users.
Three Things I learned from the article:
1. Different user interface (UI) may produce significant behavioral differences on subject search, intersect, presentation of results, and guidance on the search stages and reformulation aids.
2. The stages of Marchionini's information seeking behavior model namely: a) Problem recognition and acceptance; b) Problem definition; c) Search system selection; d) Query formulation; e) Query execution; f) Examination of results; g) Extract information; h) Reflection/Iteration/Termination. The study generated another information seeking behavior approach with slight addition/deduction in Marchionini's (1. Selection of database or dataset (go to 2.1.); 2. Search - 2.1. Initial Search (go to 3 or 4 or 5), 2.2. Search Reformulation (go to 3 or 4); 3. Evaluation of number of results - 3.1. The system provides search results (back to 2.2., or go to 4 or 5), 3.2. 0 hits results (back to 2.2.); 4. Intersect and Limit or Weight (go to 5 or back to 2.2.); 5. View (Go to 6); 6. Selection of documents to print or save (back to 1 or 2.2. or go to 7); 7. Stop).
3. The study shows that users are still more inclined in using textword search rather than subject search. This might be caused by Negative Transfer Effect (when a learned behavior interferes with a present adaptive response to a similar situation). The issue of Negative Transfer Effect should be studied further in IR, specially in the current environment of increasing use of IR systems and tools by end-users.
Application / Implication of what I've learned to my work/to me as a person:
Being equipped with at least basic knowledge on how UIs of IRs affect its users in their information seeking will benefit me. I may be able to assess how a specific IR is helping me with my information needs and how I can address its deficiency effectively.
Comments