I also have some doubts about the usefulness of the visual browser (aka
word cloud), but I think that probably U. Chicago would acknowledge the
mixed feelings about this, based on the study they did on AquaBrowser
(http://califa.org/uploadfiles/report_%20final_%202006_10_03.pdf)
"The word cloud elicited the most mixed responses. Although several
subjects used the
word cloud to eventually identify new materials, few felt they
understood how it worked.
Despite finding it confusing, some subjects found it compelling enough
to want to
continue to experiment with it. Our study indicates that the suggestion
of related terms to
users can help them find new materials, and that if not all terms in the
word cloud were
relevant, holding the user's interest in these alternate possibilities
may be important."
I also think that focussing on the word cloud (although as the report
says - the word cloud unsuprisingly attracts attention) detracts from
the rest of the product, which, as far as I can see, is doing much of
what other products in this space are doing or trying to do:
Faceted browsing
Relevance ranking
RSS feeds of results
I'm not clear from Nancy's criticism whether she simply disliked the
word cloud, and this, for her, over-rode any other positives, or whether
she felt that the implementation of these NGC type features was
particularly weak in AquaBrowser compared to other systems out there
(and if so, it would be good to explore which are the strongest
implementations and how do they differ)
Note that the word cloud can be 'closed' so that the user doesn't need
to see it, but you then lose all the functionality that has been put
into the word cloud, which includes the spelling alternatives - I think
this is probably a mistake, and it would be nice to have the spelling
suggestions as text as well as in the visual display (my instinct is
that pulling out the spelling function from the cloud would make the
cloud more useful (less clutter), and the spelling alternatives more
obvious)
Overall I like the implementation, and I applaud U Chicago both for
trying something different, and doing it relatively well. However, I do
have some (hopefully constructive) criticism.
Firstly, when I clicked through to the 'more' on the Author facets, I
found it frustrating that the default sort order was relevance rather
than alphabetical. I feel that once a user has clicked 'more' here, then
they are likely to be going be looking for someone specific (why else
click on the author facet?) and so alphabetical listing will make that
easier to navigate.
Secondly, when I click through to the Author facets, I still don't get
the chance to see all the authors connected to my search, so if the
person I'm looking for hasn't written much, I may go away thinking that
the library hasn't got anything by them.
To take a slightly contrived example:
I'm looking for books by Alfred Emerson (a Professor of Zoology at U
Chicago) - I rather naively search for 'Emerson'. Unsuprisingly a lot of
the hits are about/by RW Emerson. The author facet lists 5 authors, none
of whom are Alfred Emerson, but I see that there are '3882 more', and
click through. I find what seems to be a randomly ordered list of
authors (most of whom are even 'Emerson', nevermind 'Alfred Emerson' -
it takes me a few moments to realise they are listed by the number of
items related to them, and slighly longer to find the 'alphabet' sort
option. After re-sorting, I find that there is still no 'Emerson,
Alfred' listed. I find the 'and more - not shown' note, but there are no
options to see the 'not shown' hits.
OK - so if I search for 'alfred emerson' in the first place, I find the
right stuff, and perhaps the example is bogus - but in the end it bugs
me that I can't see all the authors related to my search results - why
not, if that's what I want to do?
Going back to the 'sort alphabetical' vs 'sort relevance' - it would be
nice if it remembered my preference on a facet by facet basis - each
time I go back to the author facet I have to resort alphabetically (in
the above example, if I narrow my search by LCSH facet of 'Q - Science',
then go back to the 'Author' facet to find Alfred, then he is in there,
but the facet has resorted by relevance, and so he isn't easy to spot .
Happy Christmas to all...
Owen
Owen Stephens
Assistant Director: e-Strategy and Information Resources
Imperial College London Library
Imperial College London
South Kensington
London SW7 2AZ
Tel: 020 7594 8829
Email: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
Received on Fri Dec 21 2007 - 05:01:36 EST