• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
UAB 2011 - Seekda Webservices Portal
 

UAB 2011 - Seekda Webservices Portal

on

  • 658 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
658
Views on SlideShare
645
Embed Views
13

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

1 Embed 13

http://www.insemtives.eu 13

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • OPD => cyclic approach along the portal & challenges
  • Phase 1 and 2 to understand the process and practices that are common to the users and the current version of the tool Therefore: User: interviews, Workshops etc. Tool: Usability lab tests, Expertwalkthroughs
  • basically the changes in the initial phase were: restructuring of the interface in general, according to interviews results and design recommendations from USI - detailed changes based on the recommendations of users (OPD), which don’t have a strong impact on the design itself but lead to a more expectation conform appearance of the portal introduction of web apis in addition to wsdl services first protoype implementation of Web Services mashups introduction of the OPD workshop I would call it something like an initial, improved prototype based on the first findings from interviews and walkthroughs which serves basically as a base for the OPD workshop
  • Caption: Phase 4: Prototyping and design analysis Phase 4 basically consisted of three parts: siehe Folie Recommendations in terms of :usablility etc OPD workshop to wrap the whole development process and evaluate changes Challenges to motivate the users to participate
  • Wizard: Usability Design (Suitable for Learning, Controllability) Attrakdiff Survey: Emotional Design (pragmatic, hedonic attributes of tools) Sociablilty: Forum, Awareness feature for other users ‘ activities
  • To involve the user and create a more attracting tool, which fits their needs: PD Move the workshop, including users, discussion and decissions into an virtual enviroment. User exlpore the prototyp, write down things they dis-/like and discuss them. Further they vote on a selection of those features.
  • The formal structure of the procedure is the following: Christoph DEMO
  • Introducing challenges: Further the OPD Workshop serve as tool to introduce the challenages to users. Those challenges are used to motivate the user to participate. James will present the three different challanges planned by seekda.
  • Our Scenario Atomic and very simple Tasks Short description for quick understanding (e.g. Screencast) Follow-up Tasks to review ('peer-reviewing' of tasks) Tasks Confirm Web API (yes / no) .... needs qualification? Provide Tags, confirm Bootstrapped Tags Provide Service Category Provide / Improve Description
  • Extensions and improvements we are trying to formulate/test
  • Christoph DEMO after done from this slide Step 1: Registration User registers for Challenge (and portal) Username is shown on list of submissions   Step 2: Brainstorming User browses and selects Web Services / APIs Comes up with an initial idea Step 3: Implementation User starts with implementation of Mashup Using selected Services and APIs Step 4: Finalizing User clicks on "Finalize” Mashup is added to our index Mashup is added to list of Finalized submissions Step 5: Add Services and APIs (optional) User adds all missing Services and APIs to our portal   Step 6: Annotate Services and APIs User annotates all used Services / APIs Provides Description, meaningful Tags, Category
  • - Point to the demo screen to show the ranking

UAB 2011 - Seekda Webservices Portal UAB 2011 - Seekda Webservices Portal Presentation Transcript

  • seekda Web Services portal SeekdaUniversity of Trento, University of Siegen
  • Overview• Web Services Portal – Crawls for and indexes Web Services on the Web – Currently more than 28,500 indexed and monitored• Problems – Found services are not annotated – For many, descriptions are not available – Limited search results and possibilities – Web APIs need to be confirmed by users• Target – Obtain more annotations by involving users in the annotation process – Validate existing annotations, if any – „Catch Them & Keep Them“4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 2
  • Design Decisions• Different annotation methods exist – Keywords/tags – Categories – Natural language descriptions – Lightweight/fully-fledged semantic web service descriptions (e.g. WSMO/Light, OWL-S, etc.)• Annotate the K.I.S. way – Avoid complicated and demanding annotations (limit to tags, categories and NL descriptions)• Use lightweight RDF ontologies in the background (e.g. to ease the search)• SWS annotations might be integrated in the future4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 3 – Most users are not familiar with SWS
  • Component Dependancy4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 4
  • Phase 1 and 2: Field and domain analysis • Domain analysis – Site visit, semi-structured, qualitative interviews • Communication processes • Existing usage practices and problems • Semantic annotation solutions – Tape recording, transcription – Data analysis per ex-post categorization • Focus group discussion • Usability lab tests • Expert walkthroughs4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 5
  • Phase 3: Prototype Creation4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 6
  • Phase 4: Prototyping and design analysis• Design recommendations – Usability Design – Sociability Design – Emotional Design – Value Sensitive Design• OPD Workshop• Challenges 4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 7
  • Phase 4: Design Recommendations4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 8
  • OPD Workshop - ObjectivesClassical PD:• User centric, cyclic development approach - usersprovide tips and feedback for/on the prototype itself.• Problem in the seekda case: •Workshops can not be conducted because users are potentially distributed all over world.OPD as solution for distributed target groups:4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 9
  • OPD Workshop - Procedure• In General: 1. Technical committee chooses number of features out of forum discussions 2. Features open for user voting 3. Feature selection, implementation 4. Collect user feedback• Duration per cycle: 4-6 weeks4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 10
  • OPD Workshop – Cycles•1st Cycle • Beginning November: Start of workshop (dashboard, technical committee, introduction) • 2 weeks later: Identification of 5 most important features/wishes • 1 week later: Selection of 2 most popular features • Beginning of Dec: Short tasks for users • Mid December: End of cycle, feedback analysis•2nd Cycle • Execution dates: January – March • Goals for this cycle • Increase motivation • Increase activity of participants • Focus more on usability/design and incentives • Changes • Tasks first • Split into smaller parts, sequentially • Explained through screencasts • Example: go to the portal, search for xyz, identify redundant elements, most important, … • OPD Dashboard Improvements4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 11
  • OPD Workshop - Results• Numbers ~ 250 votes ~ 160 forum posts 15-20 active users• User Background • Web Services experts • Developers • Random visitors• Feedback/Implementation • 18 suggested features • 6 concrete features implemented (ongoing) • Several implemented usability/design improvements• Conclusions & Next Steps (ongoing) • Introduce challenge procedures • Ask specifically about guided processes (wizards) • Integrate OPD workshop directly from the platform4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 12
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical TurkGoal: Initial annotations for new and undescribed APIsTasks available • Confirm document is related to a Web API (yes/no) • Provide/improve description • Provide and confirm (bootstrapped) tags/concepts • Provide and confirm (bootstrapped) service categories • Rate document qualityParameters • Qualification test • Min. approval rate per worker • Approx Time needed per task • Reward4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 13
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical Turk Simple Annotation WizardPhase 1 1. Setup • Initial set of 70 Web APIs • No qualification needed • Approx. Time needed: 15 minutes • Reward: 0,10$ • Description + Screencast (Walkthrough) 2. Manual evaluation (seekda) • Main focus on description and Yes/No question • Determine whether qualification is needed for workers • Determine whether wizard is understandable (usability) • Determine whether review tasks are needed4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 14
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical TurkPhase 1, ResultsTotal: 70 API documents, 23 distinct workersInitial Question (Document about Web API, Yes/No) • 49 documents correctly annotated (70%) • 21 as Yes, this document is about a Web API • 28 as No, this document is not related to a Web APIDescription, Category, Tags • ~ 15 submissions including all answers (description, category, tags) • 4 very good and extensive submissions • 8 complete and usable submissions4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 15
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical TurkPhase 1, ResultsTop Workers • 15 Tasks finished (2 very good/complete, 2 complete) • 10 Tasks finished (1 very good, 2 complete) • 5 Tasks finished (2 complete)Average time needed: 2,5 minutes (min: 9 seconds, max: 13 minutes)Phase 1, Problems • Spam (10% - 15%) • Only few added category and descriptions • Most workers did not add tags4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 16
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical TurkConclusions • Answers have to be mandatory E.g. You have to specify/select at least ... • Estimated time for completion can be decreased • → Increase reward • Clearly point out in the description what exactly needs to be achieved “In order to be approved, your submission needs to contain at least... “ 2-3 appropriate tags, A short but meaningful description, etc4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 17
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical TurkPhase 2 • New set of 100 Web APIs • No qualification needed • Approx. Time needed: 10 minutes (5 minutes less) • Reward: 0,20$ (+ 0,10$) • Improved description and explicit goals • All questions are mandatory • Multiple workers per Task (majority vote) Evaluation: Automatic4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 18
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical TurkExtensions • Additionally split Wizard into atomic tasks (e.g. Description) • Iterative Tasks • Using an existing description as seed • Read descriptions, if you think a description is appropriate, click “Vote” • If not appropriate submit a better description and get a chance to win a $xx bonus • Pre-selection of documents that need manual (seekda) approval • Spam prevention4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 19
  • Challenge 1: Amazon Mechanical Turk - Benefits• Evaluation of usability/design• Large number of confirmed Web APIs –Feed back to crawler/analysis framework –Improving the initial index quality• Large number of categorised/tagged Services/APIs –Feed back to bootstrapping Service –Improved search/navigation• Detailed service descriptions for many Services at once –Improved user experience –Improved user experience/satisfaction –Attract/motivate new visitors to participate4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 20
  • Challenge 2: Mashups• Overall Goal – Create and add mashup(s) using services / Web APIs listed on the seekda portal. – Annotate used Services and APIs.• Timeline – Duration: 4 weeks• Introduction of Task through: – Step by step guidelines – Set of rules – Example walkthrough• Reward – Gadget (Samsung Galaxy S)4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 21
  • Challenge 2: Mashups - Procedure• Step 1: Registration• Step 2: Brainstorming• Step 3: Implementation• Step 4: Finalizing• Step 5: Add Services and APIs (optional)• Step 6: Annotate Services and APIs4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 22
  • Challenge 2: Mashups – Winner Selection• Challenge lasts 4 weeks• Portal users vote for Mashups (1 week)• Selection of winner is done by seekda engineers and a group of external experts• Criteria for evaluation: • User voting • Overall quality • Originality and usefulness • Technical details/implementation • Annotations of used Services/APIs• Presentation of top 3 submissions4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 23
  • Challenge 3: Long-Term Competition• Provide annotations – become a top contributor• Collect Points • Changes and/or improvements to annotations • New annotations • Weighting according to annotation type• Rank contributors• Reputation is main award• Annotation quality will evolve4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 24
  • Challenge 3: Annotations• Allow users to donate money for good annotations  Donated money will be awarded to the top annotators• The more and better annotations provided,  The higher the reputation  The higher the financial incentive4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 25
  • Conclusion• Devising motivation methods for annotating Web services is challenging• Different possibilities were/are being explored through challenges – Mechanical Turk – Mashups Challenge – Long-Term Competition• Users were closely kept in the development loop through OPD – Ensures that implemented features are usable – Keeps users engaged in a “community”-like way4/14/11 www.insemtives.eu 26