Final Presentation of DfR JSTOR
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Final Presentation of DfR JSTOR






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 101 100 1



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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Final Presentation of DfR JSTOR Presentation Transcript

  • 1.
    • Team JSTOR / Group 1:
    • Morgan Burton - Isabela Carvalho
    • Stan (Tze-Hsiang) Lin - Leo (Lei) Shi
    Data for Research (DfR) for JSTOR
  • 2. Introduction to DFR
    • System that includes metadata, information visualization, and article retrieval for JSTOR articles
      • JSTOR is a major database of scholarly articles
      • Provides “facets” or “selectors” that allow the user to filter their search based on specific elements such as journal, author, and discipline
      • Provides graphs that update dynamically based on search query
    • User base:
      • User might be a researcher such as a doctoral student in linguistics, or a more casual researcher interested in comparing trends across disciplines (not exhaustive)
  • 3. Methods
    • Interaction map
      • Provides a map of the sections of the site
    • Personas and Scenarios
      • A glimpse at what the typical user and situation might be for the system
      • 5 Interviews conducted on potential users
    • Comparative Analysis
      • several competitive systems including Google Scholar and NINES
    • Survey
      • We surveyed over 20 target users
    • Heuristic Evaluation
      • An evaluation of general usability principles
    • Usability Testing of 5 target users
  • 4. Finding 1
    • The overall purpose of DfR is clear to users at first glance – prior to interacting with the system
    • Usability testing result: we tested prior finding from heuristic analysis that purpose of site might be unclear at first glance
      • We asked users to fill out pre-task assessments where we asked them to answer questions about their expectation of the system
      • Form asked users about what their general idea of the site was
    • Result: User expectation matched what site was about and accurately inferred relationship to JSTOR
  • 5. Recommendation 1
    • (Contrary to prior finding) do not include an explanatory sentence on the main page about DfR
  • 6. Finding 2
    • lack of visual indication of interrelationship between search and select features
    • ‘ Graphs’, ’Results list’, ‘key term’, and ‘references profile’ features are tightly linked to the main search
    • Current layout does not give an indication that ‘results list’, ‘key term’, and ‘reference profile’ are not separate content, but are about the search query done on the main page
      • There is a hierarchy
      • Some users did not understand that under the article list they would see the results of the search done on the main page
  • 7. DfR Layout Narrowing Down by USER Refined Data Set Whole Data Set Of DfR Diff. Views: Charts, Graph Results List Keyterm Cloud
  • 8. Layout Change Current Version Previous Version Location indicates incorrect hierarchy Appearance of being in the same frame indicates closer relationship Previous version took advantage of proximity
  • 9. Recommendation 2
    • Put Search Bar on a higher level
    (Personal Comments: The mockup us too small….
  • 10. Finding 3
    • The cognitive model of users and design of DfR are divergent.
    • Cognitive Model & Usability
        • Designer v. User
    • “ It’s like Google Scholar”
    • Instances of expectations v. reality using Data for Research
        • Search
        • Key Terms
  • 11. Cognitive Model: Defined
    • The way people think for the purposes of comprehension and prediction
    • Significance: for people to understand how to use the Data for Research tool, designers must understand the way they already think
    • Usability: After purpose, there must be positive interaction in function for repeat use
  • 12. Providing Search “ It’s like Google Scholar ” (but it isn’t!)
  • 13. Different Searching Patterns Search #1 Search #2 IF NOT “ Clear All ” Search in DfR Other Database Search Search #2 Search #1 Refined Data Set #1 Whole Data Set Of DfR Refined Data Set #2 Whole Data Set Refined Data Set #1 Refined Data Set #2
  • 14. search terms accumulate , rather than reset on new search (EXCEPT WHEN going directly to index) Instance: Search aggregation
  • 15. DfR’s Accumulative Search Use “Selectors” Keep Current Data Set Click “Clear All”
  • 16.
    • all produce DIFFERENT search results
    • punctuations have different treatment in the DfR interface
    Instance: Keyword searching + punctuations
  • 17. Search for “ politics ” Search for “ republican ” Search for “ witch ” Delete “ witch ” Search for “ politics republican witch ” SAME Results, By Diff. Methods BUT, you cannot do this!! SAME Data Set, Instance: Search + Blank Space
  • 18. Recommendation 3
    • Search aggregation:
      • Clearer path for new search vs. adjusting current search (“New Search” button)
    • Keyword punctuation:
      • Explain difference between “key terms” and extracted “key terms”
      • Clarify how search results are accumulated (using all terms? listing by articles and journals with higher frequency?)
  • 19. Finding 4
    • A lack of DfR system feedback left searches with unclear meanings.
    • Search record is crucial to researchers - must keep track of information they gather
    • Duplication of search in results view indicates system action to users
    • Instances
        • After-search feedback
        • Facets/Selectors
  • 20. Lack of system feedback before and after making a search - No tracking or matching of search terms No indication that anything has happened! - Selection criteria box is not prominent enough to notice
  • 21. Facets/Selectors
    • New version:
    • Not intuitive that the NAMES are links
    • Further, cannot determine what they are doing to the results (start with selection ALL included?)
    • Older version:
    • Check and “X” boxes
    • Much clearer
    • intuitive as to what is happening when “checking” (adding) or “X”-ing (subtracting) aspect of information
  • 22. Recommendation 4
    • Search Feedback
      • Additional feedback after search that indicates search has been performed
        • Google Scholar model: redundancy WORKS!
      • Header renaming to “Search Results”
    • Facet/Selector Appearance:
        • Reinstate the "X" function for all selectors (option to eliminate from results or from search entirely)
      • Reinstate "checkmark" function for facets that have been eliminated or are not included in the results.
  • 23. Summary
    • For (finding 1)...for marketing purposes, a description of DfR is NOT needed on the main page - it’s intuitive to users!
    • For (finding 2)...take advantage of X to Y. <-- not sure what to put here.
    • For (finding 3)...similar cognitive models will lead to positive interactions between the system and new users.
    • For (finding 4)...clear feedback leads to discernible meaning of search results
  • 24. Thanks !! Any Questions?