Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Pingar chief research officer Alyona Medelyan presents research conducted jointly with Anna Divoli at the Human Computer Information Retrieval workshop 2011.
Citation preview
Alyona Medelyanjoint work
with Anna Divoli(University of Chicago)
Search interface feature evaluation in biosciences
HCIR-2011
20.10.2011
Search interfaces and their features
Search tasks on the web and in bioscience
Experiment description
Side-by-side evaluation example
Data collected
Results
Talk Overview
autocomplete
results preview
facetted refinement
searchexpansions
related searches
Search interfaces and their features
Search tasks on the web and in bioscience
Experiment description
Side-by-side evaluation example
Data collected
Results
Talk Overview
Search Tasks and their Types in Web Search (Kellar et al. 2007)
Fact finding
Information gathering
Browsing
Transactions
Other
weatherexchange rate…
emailbanking
shopping…
grad schoolstravel plans…
blogsnews…
I need to collect publications by others on connexins & how they relate to our studies
I want to find out whether there are any new publications on the mechanism that underlies Golgi cisternal maturation in yeast
I’d like to find out what kind of animal models of huntington’s diseaseare out there
Search Tasks and their Types in Bioscience
Fact Finding
Information Gathering
Browsing
Which approaches to facetted navigation work best for this domain?
Which search interface features are useful for searching the biomedical literature?
Users prefer different interface features depending on the search task
Research Questions and Hypotheses
1
2
Hypothesis
It’s better to display dynamically computed sets of facets than a complete hierarchical list
Hypothesis
Search interfaces and their features
Search tasks on the web and in bioscience
Experiment description
Side-by-side evaluation example
Data collected
Results
Talk Overview
The Study
Exploratory short study with 6 bioscientists
2 faculty, 2 postdocs, 2 PhD students
Q&A on 3 search types in their work, queries, resources, systems
10-15min in person sessions
Main study with 10 bioscientists
2 faculty, 7 postdocs, 1 PhD student
Email & 1-2hr in person sessions
Side-by-side comparison of anonymysed search interface features
Per participant: 1 baseline and 1 own query
Search interfaces and their features
Search tasks on the web and in bioscience
Experiment description
Side-by-side evaluation example
Data collected
Results
Talk Overview
Baseline query
connexin
1. Autocomplete
A
D
B
E
C
F
F
G
G
2. Search Expansions
A B
3. Faceted Refinement - links
A B C
D
E
3. Faceted Refinement - checkboxes
F G
H
I
4. Related Searches
A B C
D
E F
G
5. Search Results Preview
A C
Search interfaces and their features
Search tasks on the web and in bioscience
Experiment description
Side-by-side evaluation example
Data collected
Results
Talk Overview
Search interfaces and their features
Search tasks on the web and in bioscience
Experiment description
Side-by-side evaluation example
Data collected
Results
Talk Overview
Autocompletion
Query expansions
Facetted refinement
Related searches
Search results preview
brffig
brffig
brffig
brffig
brffig
PositiveNeutralNegative1 participant
Usefulness ratings for interface features & search tasks
Summary of Findings, Participants’ Comments
Autocomplete is less important: “we feel pigeonholed by suggestions”
Facets are useful: “we focus and refine the search all the time”
Choose facets wisely: “a large number of facets is overwhelming”
Checkboxes are better than links: “we want to select multiple values”
Aesthetics are important but what really matters is the content
Few, query-oriented facets with specific values, in checkboxes!
Facets and results preview are useful for any search task
Conclusions
1
2
Other features are more useful for browsing
Which approaches to facetted navigation work best for this domain?
Which search interface features are useful for searching the biomedical literature?
[email protected]@pingar.com
