Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

DIVE+ thesis defense presentation Justin Verhulst

88 views

Published on

Thesis defense presentation of MSc Information Studies student Justin Verhulst. Investigating the usability of DIVE+ for the user group of media professionals was the main goal of the research. Diverse usability testing methods were utilized in a short period of time.

Interested in my background? Check out www.justinverhulst.nl

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

DIVE+ thesis defense presentation Justin Verhulst

  1. 1. Optimizing Explorative Search for the Needs of Media Professionals: The DIVE+ Use Case Thesis Defense Justin Verhulst
  2. 2. To discuss ● What’s it all about? ● Why bother? ● DIVE+ features: events, narratives, serendipity ● How did we study it? ● Findings ● Wrap-up Optimizing Explorative Search for the Needs of Media Professionals: The DIVE+ Use Case
  3. 3. Explorative search Explorative search ▪ Helps when you don’t know what to search for ▪ Helps you understand & deepen in a topic ▪ Serendipity driven ▪ Focused on engagement
  4. 4. Media professionals The media professional ▪ Audiovisual domain ▪ focus on organizing and collecting audiovisual material for the purpose of story generation ▪ Domains: broadcasting, archives ▪ Media professionals have to do a lot of research and thus engage in exploratory search practices
  5. 5. DIVE+ ▪ Explorative search browser based on events-enriched LOD ▪ Heritage objects and collections ▪ Interpreting, understanding & sense-making ▪ Exploration & discovery
  6. 6. So… why this research? Optimizing Explorative Search for the Needs of Media Professionals: The DIVE+ Use Case ▪ Improve our understanding of the exploratory search practices of media professionals ▪ Is DIVE+ is useful for media professionals, and how do they differ from other users ? ▪ Improving the DIVE+ interface and adapt it to the needs of media professionals
  7. 7. Research questions ▪ What are the digital search and exploration practices of media professionals? ▪ To what extent are the exploratory search requirements of media professionals supported by the narratives, events and serendipity in DIVE?
  8. 8. Events ▪ Historical events and related objects form the basis of DIVE+ ▪ Simple Event Model (SEM) is used to model events and their interrelations ▪ The user can create historically meaningful narratives in DIVE+ by connecting different events to each other.
  9. 9. Narratives ▪ A narrative can be seen as a sequence of objects and events, which together form one angle or ‘story’ of the (sub)set of the cultural heritage collection ▪ A narrative is formed by making connections between historical objects or events ▪ Narratives in DIVE+ allow the user to place cultural heritage into context and to understand it better.
  10. 10. Serendipity ▪ Serendipity is the discovery of useful information that was not initially sought for by the user ▪ DIVE+ aims to support serendipitous information retrieval ▪ In DIVE+, serendipity is stimulated through events and narratives ▪ By visually linking events and objects, the exploring user can stumble upon unexpected, but useful items.
  11. 11. related entities explore event
  12. 12. narrative
  13. 13. DIVE+ helps users to interpret information (cultural heritage) better through three core features: events, narratives, and serendipity.
  14. 14. How did we study it? CreateSalon Workshop MediaNow workshop DIVE+ testing I DIVE+ testing II Date & time 9-5-2017 15:00 - 16:00 24-5-2017 10:10 - 12:00 May - June 2017 June 2017 Target group Humanities scholars and students Media professionals (digital) humanities students Computer science students Participants background Art, history, literature, media studies Broadcasting organisations, libraries, archives Students Students Setting Collective DIVE+ test session at UvA Collective DIVE+ test session at Sound and Vision Testing DIVE+ at home Testing DIVE+ at home Size of group 18 11 16 22
  15. 15. MediaNow Workshop with media professionals CreateSalon workshop with Humanities scholars and students
  16. 16. How did we study it? Workshop media professionals ▪ 11 participants ▪ Various backgrounds: broadcasting organisations and libraries/archives A variety of tools: ▪ Poster session ▪ Usability testing of DIVE+ (simulated work task & think aloud protocol) ▪ Questionnaire ▪ Focus group ▪ Log analysis
  17. 17. Lot of data!Lots of data...
  18. 18. What did we find? ▪ Search requirements of MPs are influenced by work-related constraints ▪ Limited DIVE+ user experience due to a lack of transparency and limited user control
  19. 19. Findings: work-related constraints ▪ Limited time and budget for searching ▪ Type of material sought depends on target audience of a program ▪ Need for transparency during search “What we really have is the time restriction…” “So budget, maybe the first one is time, how much time do I have…”
  20. 20. Findings: work-related constraints ▪ Limited time and budget for searching ▪ Type of material sought depends on target audience of a program ▪ Need for transparency during search “I work at the NOS, when you search for the Youth News, you are looking for the cliché explanation story, so you are looking for facts and cliches, while for the Evening News, you are looking for an original angle”
  21. 21. Findings: work-related constraints ▪ Limited time and budget for searching ▪ Type of material sought depends on target audience of a program ▪ Need for transparency during search “the first thing you hear: don’t trust anyone, nothing. Everyone has a hidden agenda. And you have to find it. A database also has a hidden agenda, so to speak. An algorithm, how does that work here. Can I trust it. [..] We want to see it with our own eyes”
  22. 22. Findings: DIVE+ user experience Media professionals long for transparency during search: results and their interrelations should be clear and verifiable In DIVE+, more transparency is needed regarding: ▪ Collections ▪ Related entities ▪ Entity labels ▪ Object/entity information “You say making it easy, is actually showing how it is composed, the results, then you make it easy. Because then you are able to get insights, then you can trace it back”
  23. 23. Why related? Minimal metadata: descriptions & collection Why these labels?
  24. 24. Findings: DIVE+ user experience Adapt results based on background & interests of media professional ▪ Filtering options: collection & media type ▪ Adapt exploration path to include only ‘relevant’ items “Pictures don’t interest me now, I want images, moving images” “It would be useful if DIVE would not save everything by itself, but only on the request of the user”
  25. 25. More fine-grained filtering needed Include only ‘relevant’ items in the exploration path
  26. 26. Findings: wrap-up (media professionals) Work-related constraints ▪ Time and budget ▪ Target audience of a program ▪ Need for transparency Limited DIVE+ user experience ▪ lack of transparency ▪ limited user control
  27. 27. What about the other user groups? Mostly similar results: DIVE+ has some issues which limits the users to understand what, and why, results are presented to them Some notable differences ▪ Media professionals are most critical about the event characteristics ▪ Media professionals are most critical concerning suggested narratives ▪ Humanities scholars see the potential, where media professionals are more critical
  28. 28. How does this relate to events, narratives, and serendipity? Events: ▪ How events and their interrelations are presented to the users not clear, because of the transparency issues. This has negative consequences for the usefulness of narratives and events Narratives: ▪ Media professionals most critical concerning suggested narratives. ▪ Potential of exploration path and narratives is noted, e.g. sharing stories/search path with colleagues Serendipity: ▪ Limited, due to the difficulty to assess the relevance of search results
  29. 29. Requirements Search requirements of media professionals: ▪ Tools should be time-efficient to use ▪ There should be enough information available that describes collections and objects ▪ The information should be transparent and verifiable ▪ There should be options to tailor the search to the specific (need of the) media professional How should we go about to address these requirements?
  30. 30. Recommendations Requirement Interface recommendation Intended outcome There should be enough information available that describes collections and objects Provide details about the collections in DIVE+ on the start- and result page; add metadata to better describe objects Media professional is better able to make sense of and understand the objects and entities. The information should be transparent and verifiable Explicate relationships between objects on the result page Trust in DIVE+ will increase and a media professional is better able to rely on the correctness of results There should be options to tailor the search to the specific (need of the) media professional Add more fine-grained sorting options (based on media type and collection) Personal search needs of the media professional are better addressed Tools should be time-efficient to use Increase overall usability of DIVE+ Media professional saves time and potentially could use DIVE+ in actual work setting
  31. 31. Examples of interface improvements Transparency about the collections in DIVE+ Filtering options regarding collections & media type
  32. 32. Wrap-up Currently, the narratives, events, and serendipity in DIVE+ are of limited support to the exploratory search requirements of media professionals. Though users can see the potential of the various features, practical use is limited. The biggest and most pressing challenge right now, especially for media professionals, is to increase transparency of the tool, so that users are better able to understand what is presented to them, and why it is presented to them
  33. 33. Method limitations The use of methods influenced the research to some extent: ▪ Relatively short testing time, which made it difficult for the participants to assess DIVE+ in-depth. Longer testing time, e.g. through longitudinal research, would be a solution ▪ Slightly different set-up of the user studies, which diminished their comparability. Better aligning the tools (e.g. asking the same questions in different workshops) would be a solution We tried to minimize these issues by using multiple tools and methods that supported each other. The data could in this way be cross-checked, which led to reliable and valid findings and conclusions.
  34. 34. Thank you for your attention!

×