While I've never particularly liked the visual display from
AquaBrowser (or, similarly, Grokker), one thing I found interesting
was, through the spelling variation feature, how many /misspellings/
were in the search result data. If UChicago were to then set up a
policy to fix typos when they find them, this is actually a really
useful feature for maintaining data integrity (and shaming the library
by pointing out stupid typos until the data is fixed).
-Ross.
On Dec 21, 2007 4:55 AM, Stephens, Owen <o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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 - 09:46:00 EST