A Nine Month Report on Progress Towards a Framework for Evaluating Advanced Search Interfaces considering Information Retrieval and Human Computer Interaction

This is a nine month progress report detailing my research into supporting users in their search for information, where the questions, results or even their environment requires functionality beyond the scope of keyword search alone. While keyword search environments, such as Google, have become the familiar standard for search on the web, research has shown that users, who may not know which keywords to use, adopt coping strategies because they have no other methods to express their query (Pirolli and Card, 1995). Typically, these coping strategies involve submitting tentative queries with general keywords to learn more about the meta-data, to inform a more specific keyword search later. More recently, the term Exploratory Search has been used to describe search environments that provide alternative search functionality for when users may have poorly defined goals or complex questions, have insufficient pre-search knowledge, or may be using a system with poorly defined or unpredictable indexing (White et al., 2006a). While early exploratory search interfaces have been developing for some time (Hearst, 2000), recent reports have discussed the need to find metrics for evaluating their success (White et al., 2006b). As these more interactive models of search provide increasingly versatile combinations of functions, Marchionini suggests that such success is not achieved by simply adding more features but by combining them to produce synergetic designs(Marchionini, 2006). To evaluate exploratory search interfaces, designs need to be measured in terms of their support for known search tactics. The research below investigates the history of Information Retrieval (IR) research into the human element of interactive search, to develop a framework that produces a measure for such support. Then, the weaknesses of rich search designs can be identified and mitigated, before they are put forward for complex and expensive user studies. This report describes the progress of this investigation into using InformationSeeking models of users, their needs and their search behaviour, to design a

[1]  Monica M. C. Schraefel,et al.  mSpace: improving information access to multimedia domains with multimodal exploratory search , 2006, Commun. ACM.

[2]  Ryen W. White,et al.  A study of factors affecting the utility of implicit relevance feedback , 2005, SIGIR '05.

[3]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  CropCircles: Topology Sensitive Visualization of OWL Class Hierarchies , 2006, SEMWEB.

[4]  William W. Cohen,et al.  Next Generation Web Search : Setting Our Sites , 2000 .

[5]  Douglas W. Oard,et al.  One-sided measures for evaluating ranked retrieval effectiveness with spontaneous conversational speech , 2006, SIGIR '06.

[6]  Nils Pharo,et al.  A new model of information behaviour based on the Search Situation Transition schema , 2004, Inf. Res..

[7]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Evaluating implicit feedback models using searcher simulations , 2005, TOIS.

[8]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Report on ACM SIGIR 2006 workshop on evaluating exploratory search systems , 2006, SIGF.

[9]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Evaluation and evolution of a browse and search interface: relation browser , 2005, DG.O.

[10]  Ed H. Chi,et al.  Using information scent to model user information needs and actions and the Web , 2001, CHI.

[11]  J. J. Rocchio,et al.  Relevance feedback in information retrieval , 1971 .

[12]  Simon P. Levine,et al.  Validation of a keystroke-level model for a text entry system used by people with disabilities , 1994, ASSETS.

[13]  David R. Karger,et al.  The Pathetic Fallacy of RDF , 2006 .

[14]  Christopher Olston,et al.  ScentTrails: Integrating browsing and searching on the Web , 2003, TCHI.

[15]  Max L. Wilson,et al.  mSpace: What do Numbers and Totals Mean in a Flexible Semantic Browser , 2006 .

[16]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Polyarchy visualization: visualizing multiple intersecting hierarchies , 2002, CHI.

[17]  Allen Newell,et al.  The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems , 1980, CACM.

[18]  Frank M. Shipman,et al.  Spatial hypertext and the practice of information triage , 1997, HYPERTEXT '97.

[19]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A validation of the GOMS model methodology in the development of a specialized, commercial software application , 1994, CHI '94.

[20]  Mark H. Chignell,et al.  Mobile text entry: relationship between walking speed and text input task difficulty , 2005, Mobile HCI.

[21]  Gerard Salton,et al.  The SMART Retrieval System—Experiments in Automatic Document Processing , 1971 .

[22]  Monica M. C. Schraefel,et al.  A comparison of hyperstructures: zzstructures, mSpaces, and polyarchies , 2004, HYPERTEXT '04.

[23]  N. Belkin,et al.  A classification of interactions with information , 2002 .

[24]  Ophir Frieder,et al.  Hourly analysis of a very large topically categorized web query log , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[25]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[26]  Max L. Wilson,et al.  Bridging the Gap: Using IR Models for Evaluating Exploratory Search Interfaces , 2007 .

[27]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  The cascade of interactions in the digital library interface , 2002, Inf. Process. Manag..

[28]  Max L. Wilson,et al.  mSpace Mobile: Exploring Support for Mobile Tasks , 2007 .

[29]  Kevin Li,et al.  Faceted metadata for image search and browsing , 2003, CHI '03.

[30]  Edward A. Fox,et al.  Streams, structures, spaces, scenarios, societies (5s): A formal model for digital libraries , 2004, TOIS.

[31]  Ingrid Hsieh-Yee,et al.  Effects of Search Experience and Subject Knowledge on the Search Tactics of Novice and Experienced Searchers. , 1993 .

[32]  John Zahorjan,et al.  The challenges of mobile computing , 1994, Computer.

[33]  David R. Karger,et al.  Enabling web browsers to augment web sites' filtering and sorting functionalities , 2006, UIST.

[34]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Cases, scripts, and information-seeking strategies: On the design of interactive information retrieval systems , 1995 .

[35]  Monica M. C. Schraefel,et al.  Hunter gatherer: interaction support for the creation and management of within-web-page collections , 2002, WWW.

[36]  Tefko Saracevic,et al.  The Stratified Model of Information Retrieval Interaction: Extension and Applications , 1997 .

[37]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Information foraging in information access environments , 1995, CHI '95.

[38]  Barbara S. Chaparro,et al.  Breadcrumb Navigation: An Exploratory Study of Usage , 2003 .

[39]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? , 1990, Inf. Process. Manag..

[40]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  Information search tactics , 1979, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[41]  Max L. Wilson,et al.  Preview Cues: Enhancing Access to Multimedia Content , 2004 .

[42]  Sascha Kriewel,et al.  Finding and Using Strategies for Search Situations in Digital Libraries , 2006, Bull. IEEE Tech. Comm. Digit. Libr..

[43]  Kori Inkpen Quinn,et al.  Walk 'n scroll: a comparison of software-based navigation techniques for different levels of mobility , 2005, Mobile HCI.

[44]  Lynda Hardman,et al.  /facet: A Browser for Heterogeneous Semantic Web Repositories , 2006, SEMWEB.

[45]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Exploratory search , 2006, Commun. ACM.

[46]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  On the Evaluation of IR Systems , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[47]  Annelise Mark Pejtersen A Library System for Information Retrieval Based on a Cognitive Task Analysis and Supported by an Icon-Based Interface , 1989, SIGIR.