Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
User issues in top-down bottom-up tagging applications: FaceTag
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

User issues in top-down bottom-up tagging applications: FaceTag


Published on

The FaceTag Engine presentation delivered at the DC Social Tagging Workshop in Milan, June 10 2009.

The FaceTag Engine presentation delivered at the DC Social Tagging Workshop in Milan, June 10 2009.

Published in: Technology, Education

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. E. Quintarelli, A. Resmini & L. Rosati The FaceTag Engine User Issues in a Bottom-up + Top-down Tagging Application DC Social Tagging Workshop Milano, June 10 2009
  • 2. Hello DC Social Tagging People!
  • 3. my name is Andrea Resmini I'm an Information Architect I design information spaces coordinate REG-iA, the Research & Education Group in IA founded the Journal of Information Architecture one of the designers of the FaceTag engine project
  • 4. an issue
  • 5. tags are flat free-form keywords liberally assigned by users collaborative tagging is widely used to organize, browse and share large online collections folksonomies are tag-based, bottom-up, user-generated emergent classification systems
  • 6. tagging has advantages
  • 7. trade-off between simplicity and precision
  • 8. matches the user’s needs and language
  • 9. inclusive, as nothing is left out
  • 10. helps discovery and improve serendipity
  • 11. provides free-linking superstructure
  • 12. better than nothing
  • 13. tagging has disadvantages
  • 14. linguistic disadvantages polysemy, homonymy, synonymy the use of plurals, ego-tagging base-level variations
  • 15. user experience disadvantages user interfaces (tag clouds) with self- sustaining predominance cycles visual clutter no map-making editing interfaces
  • 16. plus
  • 17. “Information seekers in large domains need to deal with meaningful groupings of related items in order to understand relationships, build a mental map, and decide how to proceed”
  • 18. So, how do we move from tags to meaningful groupings and how do we navigate them?
  • 19. a number of tools and techniques have been proposed
  • 20. among them, clustering and faceted classification have been used in the past
  • 21. but
  • 22. clustering geerates messy groups, conflates many different dimensions and does not allow refinement and follow-up queries
  • 23. − facets are orthogonal descriptors within a metadata system that represent semantic properties, part of a top-down paradigm
  • 24. so what?
  • 25.  a new metadata ecology  a middle ground between the pure democracy of bottom-up tagging and the empirical determinism of top-down taxonomies
  • 26. facets + tags = FaceTag
  • 27. faceTag introduces a multidimensional, semantically richer paradigm based on the CRG faceted theory which provides tag hierarchies system facets to which tag hierarchies are assigned seamless browsing and searching
  • 28. faceTag then allows to add structure and context to flat tags navigate along several dimensions simultaneously refine and broaden filtering criteria on the fly, with no dead ends (engaging and zooming)
  • 29. tags are contextualized
  • 30.  large tag clouds can be sectioned
  • 31.  recognition is favoured over recall
  • 32.  exploration, discovery and iterative query refinement are supported
  • 33. As facets are particularly suitable to classify homogeneous collections, the combination of facets + tags amplifies both the information scent and berry- picking capabilities of the system
  • 34. this happens along the two axes of IA the vertical paradigmatic axis, where similar tags on the same facet are recalled and the horizontal syntagmatic axis, where all other tags pertaining to the same facet are recalled and suggested
  • 35. it works, but we found issues
  • 36. user experience issues
  • 37. front-end allowing choice, zooming and navigation allowing large numbers of tags structuring the facets display
  • 38. back-end entering tags having no back-end via browser bookmarklets
  • 39. first iteration
  • 40. uses metaphors from other tagging applications (, Rawsugar) introduces a visual top-to-bottom hierarchy among facets has a 'duct tape and some glue' feeling to it goes against some common UI principles
  • 41. second iteration
  • 42. designed using a UCD approach paper and HTML prototyping small groups of users involved few people, many sessions
  • 43. and now in full color
  • 44. facet panels have been moved
  • 45. for more tags, panels slide in
  • 46. x
  • 47. issues in the back-end are still to be thoroughly investigated
  • 48. thank you!