Designing Goal-based Experiences
by Joe Lamantia
- 8,772 views
When designing for information retrieval experiences, the customer must always be right. This tutorial will give you the tools to uncover user needs and design the context for delivering information, ...
When designing for information retrieval experiences, the customer must always be right. This tutorial will give you the tools to uncover user needs and design the context for delivering information, whether that be through search, taxonomies or something entirely different.
What you will learn:
* A broadly applicable method for understanding user needs in diverse information access contexts
* A collection of information retrieval patterns relevant to multiple settings such as enterprise search and information access, service design, and product and platform management
We will also discuss the impact of organizational and cultural factors on design decisions and why it is essential, that you frame business and technology challenges in the right way.
The tutorial builds on lessons learned from a large customer project focusing on transforming user experience. The scope of this program included ~25 separate web-delivered products, a large document repository, integrated customer service and support processes, content management, taxonomy and ontology creation, and search and information retrieval solutions.
Joe will share the innovate methods and surprising insight that emerged in the process.
Accessibility
Categories
Upload Details
Uploaded via SlideShare as Apple Keynote
Usage Rights
© All Rights Reserved
Statistics
- Likes
- 46
- Downloads
- 214
- Comments
- 1
- Embed Views
- Views on SlideShare
- 6,731
- Total Views
- 8,772
一晨 陆
1–1 of 1 previous next
http://www.flickr.com/photos/feijeriemersma/566123729/
We will trace the co-evolution of the information architecture and taxonomy efforts, beginning with identifying business drivers and establishing a vision, and progressing to the most recent design iterations.
apparent affiliation
The Discovery of Grounded Theory is a 1967 book (ISBN 0-202-30260-1) by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss on grounded theory.
After their success with Awareness of Dying, Glaser and Strauss decided to write a book on methodology. The Discovery of Grounded Theory was meant to invite and motivate people to use the newly developed methodology. Unlike later works, it does not provide much advice on how to put the theory into practice.
The authors had several goals in mind when writing the book:
Legitimize qualitative research. Having a reference book by established authors helped students defend qualitative studies which were not widely accepted at the time.
Criticize functionalists like Talcott Parsons and his student Robert K. Merton who in turn had been a teacher of Barney Glaser.
Demonstrate the possibility of building theories from data, something that many qualitative researchers doubt to this day, instead choosing to stick with mere ethnographic descriptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Grounded_Theory
What most differentiates grounded theory from much other research is that it is explicitly emergent. It does not test a hypothesis. It sets out to find what theory accounts for the research situation as it is. In this respect it is like action research: the aim is to understand the research situation. The aim, as Glaser in particular states it, is to discover the theory implicit in the data.
This distinction between "emergence and forcing", as Glaser frames it, is fundamental to understanding the methodology. Most of you, whatever your discipline, will have been exposed more to hypothesis-testing research than to emergent research. The research processes you have learned and the thesis structures you have internalised are those of hypothesis testing, not of emergence. Doing grounded theory well is partly a matter of unlearning some of what you have been taught or have acquired through your reading.
If you judge grounded theory by the criteria you have learned to use for hypothesis testing research you will likely misjudge it, perhaps badly. In particular, the place of literature is quite different. So is the way in which both methodology and theory develop gradually as data and interpretations accumulate.
In particular, judgments about the rigour of research are often based on narrow criteria: criteria which make sense only for the methodology for which they were developed. Grounded theory has its own sources of rigour. It is responsive to the situation in which the research is done. There is a continuing search for evidence which disconfirms the emerging theory. It is driven by the data in such a way that the final shape of the theory is likely to provide a good fit to the situation.
In fact, Glaser suggests two main criteria for judging the adequacy of the emerging theory: that it fits the situation; and that it works -- that it helps the people in the situation to make sense of their experience and to manage the situation better.
Elsewhere, I’ve offered similar arguments in favour of action research. In particular, I draw your attention to my 1999 paper to the AQR conference, and the recent paper on data driven research.
Now, the elements in more detail ...
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html#a_gt_hypoth
Emphasize analyst role as interpreter of reseacr, not person who finds things and creates profiles (tasks for customer support).
Emphasize capabilities for person centered finding.
Emphasize analyst role as interpreter of reseacr, not person who finds things and creates profiles (tasks for customer support).
Emphasize capabilities for person centered finding.
Emphasize analyst role as interpreter of reseacr, not person who finds things and creates profiles (tasks for customer support).
Emphasize capabilities for person centered finding.
Emphasize analyst role as interpreter of reseacr, not person who finds things and creates profiles (tasks for customer support).
Emphasize capabilities for person centered finding.
Emphasize analyst role as interpreter of reseacr, not person who finds things and creates profiles (tasks for customer support).
Emphasize capabilities for person centered finding.
Emphasize analyst role as interpreter of reseacr, not person who finds things and creates profiles (tasks for customer support).
Emphasize capabilities for person centered finding.
A wave is equal parts conversation and document. People can communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.
A wave is shared. Any participant can reply anywhere in the message, edit the content and add participants at any point in the process. Then playback lets anyone rewind the wave to see who said what and when.
A wave is live. With live transmission as you type, participants on a wave can have faster conversations, see edits and interact with extensions in real-time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingfacts/3575434336/
apparent affiliation