Upload
gagan
View
17
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
How Do People Get Back to Information on the Web? How Can They Do It Better?. William Jones, Harry Bruce The Information School University of Washington Susan Dumais Microsoft Research. The Problem. Finding things is a well-studied problem. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
How Do People Get Back to Information on the Web? How Can They Do It Better?
William Jones, Harry BruceThe Information SchoolUniversity of Washington
Susan DumaisMicrosoft Research
The Problem Finding things is a well-studied
problem. Keeping things found is not so well-
studied but arises in many domains: Everyday objects in our lives Personal files – paper and electronic Email The Web
Related Work Organizing personal files
Files & “piles”, (Malone, 1983) Location memory is limited, (Jones &
Dumais, 1986) Preference for browsing, (Barreau & Nardi,
1995); but see Fertig, Freeman & Gelernter (1996) for a rebuttal.
Organizing email Similar use patterns, similar problems as
for personal files, (Whittaker & Sidner, 1996)
Related Work (cont.) Organizing the Web
Widespread use of “Bookmarks”, (Pitkow & Kehoe, 1996)
Steady increase in number with time, (Abrams Baecker & Chignell, 1998)
Increasing use of folders, (Abrams et al., 1998)
Frequent use of “Back” button within a session; infrequent use of “History”, (Tauscher & Greenberg, 1997)
Overall Research ObjectivesWe’re looking for answers to the following questions:
How do people manage information for re-access and re-use? How do people “keep found things found”?
What problems do people encounter?
What can be done to help?
The Research Project Study 1: Observe “keeping” activities as
participants complete work-related, web-intensive tasks in their workplace.
25 participants in all.
Study 2: Observe efforts to “re-find” web information for a subset of these same participants.
13 participants in all
Survey a larger group. Initiated.
Prototype selectively.
Study 1: The Participants 6 Researchers. 10 Information professionals -- including
librarians and corporate information specialists.
9 Managers.
Study 1: The Procedure Prior to the observation
Participants completed an email questionnaire… and listed at least three work-related, web-intensive “free-
time” tasks. One task was selected for the observation.
During the observation Participants were observed in their own workplace. Sessions lasted about an hour. An “over-the-shoulder” video recording was made of
participants as they “thought-aloud” while working on the task.
Participants handled office interruptions (phone calls, visitors, etc.) as they normally would.
Study 1: The ResultsMany “keeping” methods were observed:
Send email to self. Send email to others. Print out the web page. Save the web page as a file. Paste URL into a document. Add hyperlink to a web site. Do nothing (and enter URL directly later, search
for or access from another web site). Bookmark the page. Write down the URL on paper.
Survey results (so far)Keeping Method
At least once a week
Do nothing to keep; enter the URL directly. 92.86%
Do nothing to keep; search again to re-access. 78.57%
Do nothing to keep; access via another web site. 71.43%
Make a Bookmark or Favorite 57.14%
Print out the web page 50.00%
Save the web page as a file 35.71%
“Personal Toolbar” or “Links” 35.71%
Send email to self 28.57%
Send email to others 28.57%
Paste the URL into a document 21.43%
Add a hyperlink to a personal web page 14.29%
Use Personal Information Management Software 7.14%
Write down the web address (URL) on paper 7.14%
A Researcher MC is a part-time lecturer and researcher at the
University of Washington. Her task for the observation was to locate web materials that might relate to a lecture she was preparing on the use of Microsoft PowerPoint. MC made frequent use of email. She mailed several URLs to herself – each in a separate email along with comments. On two occasions MC also emailed URLs to colleagues along with comments regarding potential relevance. MC maintained an elaborate organization of folders and subfolders in her email application (Microsoft Outlook) and expressed confidence that she could quickly locate an old email when needed. MC uses Favorites from time to time but declared that “it is a mess” because it hadn’t been organized recently.
A Manager DH is a third-level manager at Boeing. He
travels frequently and is rarely in his office for an hour at a time. DH was interviewed over the telephone. DH rarely accesses the Web directly for workplace matters. When he does use the Web, the task is nearly always limited in time and scope. For example, he may occasionally use the Web to look up contact information for someone or to confirm a flight. DH depends heavily on email – from colleagues, his subordinates and other managers to whom he is responsible in one way or another.
A Functional Analysis
Several functions appear to influence the choice of method: Reminding Context Number of access points – home,
work, road… Ease of maintenance …
A Functional Analysis (cont.)
Por
tabi
lity
Num
ber
of a
cces
s po
ints
Per
sist
ence
Pre
serv
atio
n
Cur
renc
y
Con
text
Rem
indi
ng
Eas
e of
inte
grat
ion
Com
mun
icat
ion
Eas
e of
mai
nten
ance
Email to self Low High Low Med High High High Med Low Med
Email to others Low High Low Med High High Low Low? High High
Print-out High High High Low Low Low High Med High Med
Save as file Med? Low? High High Low Low Low Med? Low Med
Paste URL indocument
Low Low? Low Med High High High? High? Low High
Personal web site Low High Low Med High High High? High Med High?
Search Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Direct entry Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Bookmarks Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low Low Low
History Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low? Low ?
A Functional Analysis (cont.)
Por
tabi
lity
Num
ber
of a
cces
s po
ints
Per
sist
ence
Pre
serv
atio
n
Cur
renc
y
Con
text
Rem
indi
ng
Eas
e of
int
egra
tion
Com
mun
icat
ion
Eas
e of
mai
nten
ance
Email to self Low High Low Med High High High Med Low Med
Email to others Low High Low Med High High Low Low? High High
Print-out High High High Low Low Low High Med High Med
Save as file Med? Low? High High Low Low Low Med? Low Med
Paste URL indocument
Low Low? Low Med High High High? High? Low High
Personal web site Low High Low Med High High High? High Med High?
Search Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Direct entry Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Bookmarks Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low Low Low
History Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low? Low ?
A Functional Analysis (cont.)
Por
tabi
lity
Num
ber
of a
cces
s po
ints
Per
sist
ence
Pre
serv
atio
n
Cur
renc
y
Con
text
Rem
indi
ng
Eas
e of
int
egra
tion
Com
mun
icat
ion
Eas
e of
mai
nten
ance
Email to self Low High Low Med High High High Med Low Med
Email to others Low High Low Med High High Low Low? High High
Print-out High High High Low Low Low High Med High Med
Save as file Med? Low? High High Low Low Low Med? Low Med
Paste URL indocument
Low Low? Low Med High High High? High? Low High
Personal web site Low High Low Med High High High? High Med High?
Search Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Direct entry Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Bookmarks Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low Low Low
History Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low? Low ?
Other Notables Participants seemed to distinguish
between three categories. Web sites used repeatedly – make it
easy to access. Web sites used infrequently but
important to be able to access. Web sites to check out later to see if
useful.
Other Notables (cont.) Some participants went to great lengths to
maintain a single hierarchy. Print web pages to file with other papers. Save email documents to filing system for e-
docs. Work with assistant to establish consistent
organizations across paper documents, e-docs, email & favorites.
Keeping practices appear to vary with a person’s job and relationship to information.
Study 2: Delayed Cued Recall A second study looks at how/how well
people are able to get back to web sites. Session 1: Participant describes each in a set
of web sites they have visited recently – without including name or URL.
Session 2, 3-6 months later: Participants are cued with these descriptions and told to get back to the site as best they can. We observe methods used and problems encountered.
Study 2 Methods Focus on “useful” web sites – sites that
a participant is very likely to want to re-access over the next 12 months (75% or greater).
Sample for different frequencies of access in a typical week. High – daily access in a typical week. Medium – 1 to 3 times in a typical week. Low – not accessed in a typical week.
Measure cue effectiveness. Does the participant recall the task? The site?
Study 2 Results Success rate is high – 90% or better. Roughly 2/3 of the re-finding
methods require no “keeping” forethought. Direct entry of URL Access web site via another web site
(such as a “hub”) Search again
When Participant Recalls Task and Site
Access Freq.
# of Part.
Obj. Success
Subj. Success
Trial time
# of Methods Tried
1st Method Requires “Keeping”
Last Method Requires “Keeping”
Low 11 90% 100% 1:42 1.2 30% 23% Medium 12 98% 100% 1:07 1.2 29% 19% High 11 100% 100% 0:47 1.0 36% 36%
When Participant Recalls Task Only
Access Freq.
# of Part.
Obj. Success
Subj. Success
Trial time
# of Methods Tried
1st Method Requires “Keeping”
Last Method Requires “Keeping”
Low 8 23% 86% 2:59 1.7 42% 52% Medium 3 33% 100% 1:14 1.0 33% 33% High 2 50% 100% 1:59 1.0 50% 50%
Prototyping
… as driven by the data. Simple extensions to Add Favorites to support the following options:
Add a comment. Save Favorite to filing system. Email Favorite.
The Prototype
Conclusions
People use a diversity of methods to organize web information for re-access and re-use.
A functional analysis can help us to understand the diversity of methods observed and their relative popularity.
Conclusions (cont.)
Methods differ in the functions they provide.
No single current method provides all the functions a user may need.
The relative importance of functions (and hence the choice of methods) depends upon the task at hand.
Conclusions (cont.)
A “natural” study of people doing tasks in their workplace can be very useful.
How Can We Do It Better? Better reminding. Better integration. Fewer organizational schemes. Further improvements in “do
nothing” methods. In-line matching for suggested
completions Factor history into search results?
“Stuff I’ve Seen” searching.
For More Information http://kftf.ischool.washington.edu/
Supplemental slides
A Functional Analysis (cont.)
Additional functions: Persistence of information Preservation of information in its
current state Currency of information Ease of integration Communication and information sharing Portability of information
Use of keeping methods by participant group
Res
earc
her
s
Info
rmat
ion
S
pec
iali
sts
Man
ager
s
# of participants 4 8 6
Email to self 75% 25% 0%
Email to others 25% 0% 100% Print-out 50% 13% 17%
Save as file 25% 0% 0%
Paste URL in document 75% 13% 0%
Personal web site 25% 0% 0%
Bookmark (Favorite) 50% 88% 33%
Notes on paper 0% 25% 0%
Links toolbar 0% 13% 17%
Outlook "Note" 0% 13% 0%
A Functional Analysis (cont.)
Por
tabi
lity
Num
ber
of a
cces
s po
ints
Per
sist
ence
Pre
serv
atio
n
Cur
renc
y
Con
text
Rem
indi
ng
Eas
e of
int
egra
tion
Com
mun
icat
ion
Eas
e of
mai
nten
ance
Email to self Low High Low Med High High High Med Low Med
Email to others Low High Low Med High High Low Low? High High
Print-out High High High Low Low Low High Med High Med
Save as file Med? Low? High High Low Low Low Med? Low Med
Paste URL indocument
Low Low? Low Med High High High? High? Low High
Personal web site Low High Low Med High High High? High Med High?
Search Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Direct entry Low High Low Med High Low Low ? Low High
Bookmarks Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low Low Low
History Low Low Low Med High Low Low Low? Low ?