Advertisement

Active Support for Query Formulation in Virtual Digital Libraries: A Case Study with DAFFODIL

  • André Schaefer
  • Matthias Jordan
  • Claus-Peter Klas
  • Norbert Fuhr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3652)

Abstract

Daffodil is a front-end to federated, heterogeneous digital libraries targeting at strategic support of users during the information seeking process. This is done by offering a variety of functions for searching, exploring and managing digital library objects. However, the distributed search increases response time and the conceptual model of the underlying search processes is inherently weaker. This makes query formulation harder and the resulting waiting times can be frustrating. In this paper, we investigate the concept of proactive support during the user’s query formulation. For improving user efficiency and satisfaction, we implemented annotations, proactive support and error markers on the query form itself. These functions decrease the probability for syntactical or semantical errors in queries. Furthermore, the user is able to make better tactical decisions and feels more confident that the system handles the query properly. Evaluations with 30 subjects showed that user satisfaction is improved, whereas no conclusive results were received for efficiency.

Keywords

Digital Library Query Formulation Search Interface Heuristic Evaluation Query Reformulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kriewel, S., Klas, C.P., Schaefer, A., Fuhr, N.: Daffodil - strategic support for user-oriented access to heterogeneous digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine 10 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klas, C.P., Fuhr, N., Schaefer, A.: Evaluating strategic support for information access in the DAFFODIL system. In: Heery, R., Lyon, L. (eds.) ECDL 2004. LNCS, vol. 3232, pp. 476–487. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maes, P., Wexelblat, A.: Interface agents. In: CHI 1996, vol. 2 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maes, P.: Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM 37, 30–40 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horvitz, E.: Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In: CHI 1999, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 159–166. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuhr, N., Klas, C.P., Schaefer, A., Mutschke, P.: Daffodil: An integrated desktop for supporting high-level search activities in federated digital libraries. In: Agosti, M., Thanos, C. (eds.) ECDL 2002. LNCS, vol. 2458, pp. 597–612. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tombros, A., Larsen, B., Malik, S.: The interactive track at inex 2004. In: Fuhr, N., Lalmas, M., Malik, S., Szlávik, Z. (eds.) INEX 2004. LNCS, vol. 3493, pp. 410–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belkin, N.J.: Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science 5, 133–143 (1980)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borgman, C.L.: The user’s mental model of an information retrieval system. In: Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 268–273. ACM, New York (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bates, M.J.: The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review 13, 407–424 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bates, M.J.: Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing and Management 26, 575–591 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marchionini, G.: Information seeking in electronic environments(1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhltau, C.C.: Developing a model of the library search process: Cognitive and affective aspects. RQ 28, 232–242 (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schatz, B.R., Cochrane, P.A., Chen, H., Johnson, E.H.: Interactive term suggestion for users of digital libraries: Using subject thesauri and co-occurrence lists for information retrieval. In: DL 1996: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 126–133 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brajnik, G., Mizzaro, S., Tasso, C.: Evaluating user interfaces to information retrieval systems: A case study on user support. In: Frei, H.P., Harman, D., Schäuble, P., Wilkinson, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 128–136. ACM, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sanderson, M., Coverson, C., Hancock-Beaulieu, M., Joho, H.: Hierarchical presentation of expansion terms (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ringel, M., Cutrell, E., Dumais, S., Horvitz, E.: Milestones in time: The value of landmarks in retrieving information from personal stores, pp. 184–191 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Schaefer
    • 1
  • Matthias Jordan
    • 1
  • Claus-Peter Klas
    • 1
  • Norbert Fuhr
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Duisburg-Essen 

Personalised recommendations