Search results

Proposes encouraging librarians to be more informed about the value of collection evaluations.

Three examples of collection evaluation methods (user‐centered evaluation, physical assessment, and specific subject support) are explored.

Many strategies are available for evaluating collections, regardless of the kind of library or size of the collection. Evaluation allows librarians a more thorough knowledge of what already exists, what may be needed, and whether collection development goals are being achieved.

Methods of meaningful collection evaluation are shared so that librarians may create an evaluation that will provide useful information to them in their library setting. Implications for successful future collection management, financial resource management, and effective format selection are discussed.

Discussion that includes the “assessment of specific subject support” and “assessing and building specific subject collections” encourages librarians to recognize their major and minor collections, creatively assess those collection areas, and involve techniques or individuals who might guide them to specific subject materials.

The purpose of this paper is to study how a Wiki is used for knowledge sharing within an organization.

The aim of this research is to evaluate this Wiki performance regarding knowledge sharing objectives.

A Wiki has been deployed since several years within STMicroelectronics Company to improve Business Intelligence teamwork.

The proposed evaluation methodology is based on a user-centered approach.

The purpose of this study is to synthesize prior user-centered research to develop and present a generalized framework for evaluating visual, i.e. both image and video digital libraries. The primary objectives include comprehensively examining the current state of visual digital library research to: develop a generalized framework applicable for designing user-centered evaluations of visual digital libraries; identify influential experimental factors warranting assessment evaluation as part of specific contexts; and provide examples of applied methods that have been used in research, demonstrating notable findings.

The framework presented in the present study depicts a set of user-centered methodological considerations and examples, synthesized from a review of prior research that provides significant understanding of users and uses of visual information.

Primary components for digital library evaluation, pertaining to user, interaction, system and domain and topic, and their implications for interactive research are presented. Methods, examples and discussion are presented for each primary evaluation component of the framework.

Previously applied evaluations and their significance are described and presented as part of the developed framework, providing the importance of each component for practical application in future research and development of interactive visual digital libraries.

Visual digital libraries warrant individual assessment, apart from other types of digital collections, as they offer users more ways to retrieve and interact with collection items. The present study complements prior digital library evaluation research by demonstrating the need for a separate framework due to variations influenced by visual information and reporting on evaluations from different perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework applicable to interactive video retrieval. The objective of the framework is so that it can be applied conceptually for understanding users and use of video digital libraries, and also practically for designing retrieval components like user interfaces.

The framework was developed through a user-centered and analytical approach, and serves as an initial attempt at generalizing how users interact when searching and browsing digital video, throughout different situations, along with the general designs that can be supportive.

The framework is two-fold, yet, together, comprises one set of conceptual findings. The first component of the framework depicts generalized user interactions throughout varying contexts of an interactive video retrieval process, followed by a second component, an illustration of the resulting supportive interface designs or sets of features. Cautions from previous studies not to over generalize the interactive process were heeded.

The implications for such research are based on the understanding that video retrieval will benefit from the advancement of user-centered foundations, which can guide and support design decisions for resources like digital libraries.

The need for this study is rather straightforward: there is currently not enough conceptual research of interactive video retrieval from a user-centered perspective, which contrasts with other areas of information retrieval research where the interaction process has been thoroughly examined for a variety of domains and contexts with implications for different retrieval tools like OPACs, search engines, and article databases.

The present study aims to review the literature concerning Digital Libraries (DLs) and user interfaces in order to identify, determine, and suggest evaluation criteria for a DLs user interface. Accordingly, this study's objectives are threefold: explore which criteria exert a significant relationship with the DLs user interface; identify a set of criteria that appears to be useful for evaluating DLs user interface; and determine evaluation criteria that have more frequency and occurrence in the related texts reviewed.

To do it, first, identifying related texts was necessary. Consequently, keywords such as “DLs user interface evaluation”,” DLs user interfaces”, “DLs evaluation”, “DLs usability”, “user interface evaluation”, “DLs research”, “web sites user interface evaluation”, “user interface standards”, and the like have been searched in the web as well as in some leading databases including Emerald, Proquest, SagePub, ScienceDirect, LISA, ERIC, ACM, and Springer. After identifying and accessing more than 100 evaluative works and some related articles, theoretical and empirical, nearly 50 sources were chosen for final examination.

After reviewing related texts, three major categories are identified: user interface and DLs; DLs and usability; and other studies related to user interface; each one of three identified categories has its own subcategories. Additionally, 22 evaluation criteria for assessing DLs interface have been identified.

The review does not claim to be comprehensive.

Hopefully, criteria such as feedback, ease of use, match between system and the real world, customization, user support, user workload, interaction, compatibility, visibility of system status, user experience, flexibility, and accessibility which have been less considered should be applied more in future, particularly user‐oriented, studies. Furthermore, it is expected that criteria mentioned here could help related bodies pay more attention to the evaluation of EISs, especially DLs interface.

It can be said that this study has contributed to the research into the evaluation of DL interface.

Currently there is a need for an updated assessment model that addresses and reflects the ongoing diversity of issues related to collection evaluation in academic libraries. The purpose of this paper is to provide conceptual guidelines and a model to support collection evaluation and assessment in this time of unstable and constantly changing patterns of information.

The paper provides a literature review of the collection evaluation and assessment. Based on an analytical study of environmental factors and their relationship to, and impact on, the library collection, the authors propose a new model of collection evaluation to address the needs of the current environment.

The paper identifies environmental factors in collection evaluation, establishes a set of ratios that need to be addressed and finally, provides a set of indicators for collection evaluation and assessment that can be selected from, and adapted to each library's needs.

This paper bridges two different collection evaluation models, collection‐based and user‐based. It identifies that there is not a single appropriate collection evaluation method. It provides a different perspective to a body of literature that is mostly best practice‐based.

With this research a new model is suggested that provides flexibility and adaptability. It offers a multidimensional approach that libraries can use and adapt to their specific situation.

The new model suggested here addresses a current need generated by a changing information environment. It adds a new approach to the body of literature in the area of collection evaluation.

This paper sets out to present the concept of the value of information, review the descriptive, rational, social and behavioral approaches for assessing the value of information, and explain why user‐centered rather than information‐centered evaluations are the most relevant.

The paper starts by highlighting the main facets and market characteristics which influence the value of information. Next, four approaches to assessing the value of information are explained, including a discussion of advantages and limitations of each approach. The approaches reviewed include descriptive, rational, social and behavioral research. Finally, an information value assessment recommendation is given and a theoretical framework is offered.

The descriptive approach is useful in raising new angles for theory development. The rational approach assumes that the value is inherent in information and offers models that describe how information should be valued. The social perspective suggests that markets are enhanced by social activity. The behavioral aspect teaches that value perception changes by person and circumstance and is a key influence on information markets.

This paper offers a concentrated multi‐dimensional theoretical basis on a topic of central importance to anyone interested in Internet research, information consumption and production. Theory offered here constitutes a basis for a large number of potential empirical research endeavors.

The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations.

This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews.

The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis.

The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels.

In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.

With a mass of electronic multi-topic documents available, there is an increasing need for evaluating emerging analysis tools to help users and digital libraries analyze these documents better. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction of THC-DAT, a within-document analysis tool, in reading a multi-topic document.

The authors reviewed related literature first, then performed a user-centered, comparative evaluation of two within-document analysis tools, THC-DAT and BOOKMARK. THC-DAT extracts a topic hierarchy tree using hierarchical latent Dirichlet allocation (hLDA) method and takes the context information into account. BOOKMARK provides similar functionality to the Table of Contents bookmarks in Adobe Reader. Three novel kinds of tasks were devised for participants to finish on two tools, with objective results to assess reading effectiveness and efficiency. And post-system questionnaires were employed to obtain participants’ subjective judgments about the tools.

The results confirm that THC-DAT is significantly more effective than BOOKMARK, while not inferior in efficiency. There is some evidence that suggests THC-DAT can slow down the process of approaching cognitive overload and improve users’ willingness to undertake difficult task. Based on qualitative data from questionnaires, the results indicate that users were more satisfied when using THC-DAT than BOOKMARK.

Adopting THC-DAT in digital libraries or electrical document reading systems contributes to promoting users’ reading performance, willingness to undertake difficult task and general satisfaction. Moreover, THC-DAT is of great value to addressing cognitive overload problem in the information retrieval field.

This paper evaluates a novel within-document analysis tool in analyzing a multi-topic document, and proved that this tool is superior to the benchmark in effectiveness and user satisfaction, and not inferior in efficiency.