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.
Active & Passive Utility of Search
Interface Features in different
Information Seeking Task Stages
Hugo C. Huurdeman, Max ...
1. Introduction
• Information seeking theory:
• stages within complex tasks
• involving learning / knowledge construction
...
Related Work
task-based inf. seeking, SUIs & feature utility2
2. Related Work: Task-Based Inf. Seeking
• Context: task-based information seeking & searching [Wilson09]
• IR systems: “d...
[Ahlberg&Shneiderman94]
[Google Wonder Wheel]
[ClusterMap]
[Epicurious]
[Donato10]
[Hearst&Degler13]
[Proulx et al., 2006]...
[Ahlberg&Shneiderman94]
[Google Wonder Wheel]
[ClusterMap]
[Epicurious]
[Donato10]
[Hearst&Degler13]
[Proulx et al., 2006]
Few features have made it to the general search engines, however
2. Related Work: SUI features over time
•Most common: phases of singular search session
• Facet use in ‘decision making st...
Setup
multistage task design, protocol, system & logging3
3. Setup
• User study (26 participants; 24 analyzed)
• Undergrads Univ. of Nottingham (6 F, 12 M, 18-25y)
• Experimental S...
3. Setup: Multistage Task Design
sim. work task: writing essay
subtask subtask subtask
prepare list of 

3 topics
choose t...
3. Setup: Protocol
Training task
Pre-
Questionnaire
Topic
Assignment
Introduction
system
Task
Post-task
Questionnaire
3x
P...
• Experimental system: SearchAssist
• Results, Query Corrections, Query
Suggestions: Bing Web API
• Category Filters: DMOZ...
Control
Input
PersonalizableInformational
3. Setup: Logging
eyetribe.com
3. Setup: Data / Task details
• AV & VR topics invoked comparable behaviours:
• analysed as one topic set
• Total duration...
Findings: Active Behaviour
behaviour directly and indirectly derivable from logs4
4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks
0
4
8
Sig. clicks on interface 

features over time
Category filters ➡
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks
0
4
8
Sig. clicks on interface 

features over time
Category filters ➡
Tag Cloud ➡
Stage 1 Sta...
4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks
0
4
8
Sig. clicks on interface 

features over time
Category filters ➡
Tag Cloud ➡
Search butt...
4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks
0
4
8
Sig. clicks on interface 

features over time
Category filters ➡
Tag Cloud ➡
Search butt...
4.2 Active Behaviour: Queries
•Mean number of queries** (unique):
• Stage 1: 9.5 (8.1) ➡ Stage 2: 5.5 (5.1) ➡ Stage 3: 5.9...
4.3 Active Behaviour: Query words
•Mean number of query words**:
“virtual reality” (P.02)
“impact of virtual reality on
so...
4.4 Active Behaviour: Visited pages
• Visited pages (unique)**:
• Stage 1: 8.0 (7.3)
• Stage 2: 6.4 (5.9)
• dwell time hig...
4.5 Active Behaviour: Wrapup
• Clicks:
• decreasing for Query Box (input), Category Filters & Tag
Cloud (control)
• increa...
Findings: Passive Behaviour
behaviour not typically caught in interaction logs5
eyetribe.com
Passive behaviour: mouse hovers
Category filters** ➡
• Mouse movements:
• movements to reach a feature, also to aid process...
Passive behaviour: mouse hovers
Category filters** ➡
Tag Cloud* ➡
• Mouse movements:
• movements to reach a feature, also t...
Passive behaviour: mouse hovers
Category filters** ➡
Tag Cloud* ➡
Query Box** ➡
• Mouse movements:
• movements to reach a f...
Passive behaviour: mouse hovers
Category filters** ➡
Tag Cloud* ➡
Query Box** ➡
Results List* ⤻
• Mouse movements:
• moveme...
5.2 Passive Behaviour: eye fixations
Stage 1 (exploration) Stage 2 (focus formulation)
Stage 3 (postfocus, collection)
• Ov...
Passive behaviour: eye tracking
eye tracking fixations
0
25
50
75
100
1 2 3
• Further insights via eye tracking fixation cou...
Passive behaviour: eye tracking
eye tracking fixations
0
25
50
75
100
1 2 3
Tag Cloud* ➡
• Further insights via eye trackin...
Passive behaviour: eye tracking
eye tracking fixations
0
25
50
75
100
1 2 3
Category filters** ➡
Tag Cloud* ➡
• Further insi...
Passive behaviour: eye tracking
eye tracking fixations
0
25
50
75
100
1 2 3
Category filters** ➡
Tag Cloud* ➡
Query Box** ➡
...
Passive behaviour: eye tracking
eye tracking fixations
0
25
50
75
100
1 2 3
Category filters** ➡
Tag Cloud* ➡
Query Box** ➡
...
3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Tag Cloud [5.8% fixations ⬌ 3.1% clicks]
S...
3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Query Suggestions [3.6% fix. ⬌ 1.9% clicks...
3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Query Suggestions [3.6% fix. ⬌ 1.9% clicks...
3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Query Suggestions [3.6% fix. ⬌ 1.9% clicks...
5.4 Passive Behaviour: Wrapup
•Fixations & mouse moves
• validating active behaviour
• subtle differences active and passi...
Findings: Perceived Feature Utility
perceived usefulness (post-stage & experiment)6
6.2 Perceived Usefulness: post-experiment
• Post-experiment questionnaire:
• In which stage or stages were SUI features mo...
6.3 Perceived Usefulness: Category Filters
• “good at the start (…) but later I
wanted something more specific” (P.11)
• co...
6.3 Perceived Usefulness: Tag Cloud
• at the start:
• “…aids exploring the topic” (P.06);
• “came up with words that I had...
6.3 Perceived Usefulness: Tag Cloud
• at the start:
• “…aids exploring the topic” (P.06);
• “came up with words that I had...
6.3 Perceived Utility: Query Suggestions
• “…was good at the start but as soon
as I got more specific into my topic,
that w...
6.3 Perceived Utility: Recent Queries
• Naturally: “…most useful in the end
because I had more searches from
before” (P.26...
6.3 Perceived Utility: Saved Results
• “most useful in the end” (P.12)
• “At the start [I was] saving a lot of
general thi...
Conclusion
towards more dynamic support7
0%!
20%!
40%!
60%!
80%!
100%!
Stage 1! Stage 2! Stage 3!
Percentageofparticipants!
input / informational!
control!
persona...
7. Conclusion: theoretical roundup
complex information seeking task
pre-focus stage:
• vague understanding
• limited domai...
7. Conclusion: theoretical roundup
complex information seeking task
pre-focus stage:
• vague understanding
• limited domai...
7. Conclusion: theoretical roundup
complex information seeking task
pre-focus stage:
• vague understanding
• limited domai...
7. Conclusion: Future Work
•Our study: essay writing simulated work task
• Extension to other types of complex tasks, user...
7. Conclusion: towards dynamic SUIs
•Most Web search systems converged over static
and familiar designs
• trialled feature...
References (1/2)
[Ahlberg&Shneiderman94] C. Ahlberg and B. Shneiderman. Visual information seeking: Tight coupling of dyna...
References (2/2)
[Toms11] E. G. Toms. Task-based information searching and retrieval. In Interactive Information
Seeking, ...
Acknowledgements
• This research was supported by:
• EPSRC Platform Grant EP/M000877/1
and
• NWO Grant 640.005.001, WebART...
Active & Passive Utility of Search
Interface Features in different
Information Seeking Task Stages
Hugo C. Huurdeman, Max ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Active & Passive Utility of Search Interface Features in different Information Seeking Task Stages

464 views

Published on

Presentation at the ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR), March 14, 2016.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Active & Passive Utility of Search Interface Features in different Information Seeking Task Stages

  1. 1. Active & Passive Utility of Search Interface Features in different Information Seeking Task Stages Hugo C. Huurdeman, Max L. Wilson, Jaap Kamps University of Amsterdam, University of Nottingham huurdeman @ uva.nl, max.wilson @ nottingham.ac.uk, kamps @ uva.nl ACM CHIIIR conference, March 14, 2016 Chapel Hill, NC, USA dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2854957
  2. 2. 1. Introduction • Information seeking theory: • stages within complex tasks • involving learning / knowledge construction • Research into Search User Interfaces (SUIs) • proposed many interactive features • usefulness proven in micro level studies, but not widely adopted • Our study: investigating the utility of various SUI features at different macro-level stages
  3. 3. Related Work task-based inf. seeking, SUIs & feature utility2
  4. 4. 2. Related Work: Task-Based Inf. Seeking • Context: task-based information seeking & searching [Wilson09] • IR systems: “deliver task-specific information leading to problem resolution” [Toms11] • Information seeking models: discussing inf. seeking stages +uncertainty- FormulationInitiation Selection Exploration Collection Presentation Prefocus Formulation Postfocus [Kuhlthau91] [Vakkari01]
  5. 5. [Ahlberg&Shneiderman94] [Google Wonder Wheel] [ClusterMap] [Epicurious] [Donato10] [Hearst&Degler13] [Proulx et al., 2006] •SUIs may aid users to: • express needs, formulate queries, provide understanding & to track progress [Hearst09] •Complexity of designing effective SUIs [Shneiderman05] •Many proposed interactive features: • search suggestions [Niu14], facets [Tunkelang09], item trays [Donato10], .. 2. Related Work: Search User Interfaces
  6. 6. [Ahlberg&Shneiderman94] [Google Wonder Wheel] [ClusterMap] [Epicurious] [Donato10] [Hearst&Degler13] [Proulx et al., 2006]
  7. 7. Few features have made it to the general search engines, however
  8. 8. 2. Related Work: SUI features over time •Most common: phases of singular search session • Facet use in ‘decision making stages’ [Kules&Capra12] • Query suggestions for difficult topics & during later phases in task [Niu&Kelly14] • Search stage sensitive and agnostic features [DiriyeEA10] • Conceptually bridging macro-level inf. seeking models & micro level systems [Huurdeman&Kamps14] •Few cases also multiple search sessions • e.g. [Liu&Belkin15,Wilson&schraefel08]
  9. 9. Setup multistage task design, protocol, system & logging3
  10. 10. 3. Setup • User study (26 participants; 24 analyzed) • Undergrads Univ. of Nottingham (6 F, 12 M, 18-25y) • Experimental SUI resembling common Search Engine • Within-participants • Task stage independent variable • Task design: explicit multistage approach
  11. 11. 3. Setup: Multistage Task Design sim. work task: writing essay subtask subtask subtask prepare list of 
 3 topics choose topic;
 formulate specific
 question find and select 
 additional
 pages to cite 15 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes initiation
 topic selection
 exploration focus formulation collecting presenting Topics (b/o discussions teaching staff) • Autonomous Vehicles (AV) • Virtual Reality (VR)
  12. 12. 3. Setup: Protocol Training task Pre- Questionnaire Topic Assignment Introduction system Task Post-task Questionnaire 3x Post-experiment questionnaire Debriefing interview
  13. 13. • Experimental system: SearchAssist • Results, Query Corrections, Query Suggestions: Bing Web API • Category Filters: DMOZ • Categorization and analysis: • Max Wilson’s framework of SUI features [Wilson11]
  14. 14. Control Input PersonalizableInformational
  15. 15. 3. Setup: Logging eyetribe.com
  16. 16. 3. Setup: Data / Task details • AV & VR topics invoked comparable behaviours: • analysed as one topic set • Total duration main tasks • Total task time: 32:56 • 36.8% SUI, 33% Task screen, 30.2% Webpages Stage 1: 11:32 Stage 2: 8:24 Stage 3: 12:59
  17. 17. Findings: Active Behaviour behaviour directly and indirectly derivable from logs4
  18. 18. 4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks 0 4 8 Sig. clicks on interface 
 features over time Category filters ➡ Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
  19. 19. 4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks 0 4 8 Sig. clicks on interface 
 features over time Category filters ➡ Tag Cloud ➡ Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
  20. 20. 4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks 0 4 8 Sig. clicks on interface 
 features over time Category filters ➡ Tag Cloud ➡ Search button ➡ Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
  21. 21. 4.1 Active Behaviour: Clicks 0 4 8 Sig. clicks on interface 
 features over time Category filters ➡ Tag Cloud ➡ Search button ➡ Saved Results Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
  22. 22. 4.2 Active Behaviour: Queries •Mean number of queries** (unique): • Stage 1: 9.5 (8.1) ➡ Stage 2: 5.5 (5.1) ➡ Stage 3: 5.9 (5.3) 0 2,5 5 7,5 10 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Search Box Query Suggestions Recent Queries
  23. 23. 4.3 Active Behaviour: Query words •Mean number of query words**: “virtual reality” (P.02) “impact of virtual reality on society art and culture“ “autonomous vehicles” (P.06) “autonomous vehicles costs
 insurance industry” 0 1,25 2,5 3,75 5 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Mean Number of Query words
  24. 24. 4.4 Active Behaviour: Visited pages • Visited pages (unique)**: • Stage 1: 8.0 (7.3) • Stage 2: 6.4 (5.9) • dwell time highest • Stage 3: 14.2 (10.8) • Mean rank visited pages • from 3.1 to 6.4 0 4 8 12 16 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Results List Saved Results
  25. 25. 4.5 Active Behaviour: Wrapup • Clicks: • decreasing for Query Box (input), Category Filters & Tag Cloud (control) • increasing for Saved Results (personalizable) • Queries: • decreasing over time, but more complex • Popularity of certain features and impopularity of others: •Some features used in passive instead of active ways?
  26. 26. Findings: Passive Behaviour behaviour not typically caught in interaction logs5 eyetribe.com
  27. 27. Passive behaviour: mouse hovers Category filters** ➡ • Mouse movements: • movements to reach a feature, also to aid processing contents [Rodden08] •Focus here on mouse movements not leading to click • Tendencies mostly overlap with active interaction measure 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 1 2 3
  28. 28. Passive behaviour: mouse hovers Category filters** ➡ Tag Cloud* ➡ • Mouse movements: • movements to reach a feature, also to aid processing contents [Rodden08] •Focus here on mouse movements not leading to click • Tendencies mostly overlap with active interaction measure 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 1 2 3
  29. 29. Passive behaviour: mouse hovers Category filters** ➡ Tag Cloud* ➡ Query Box** ➡ • Mouse movements: • movements to reach a feature, also to aid processing contents [Rodden08] •Focus here on mouse movements not leading to click • Tendencies mostly overlap with active interaction measure 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 1 2 3
  30. 30. Passive behaviour: mouse hovers Category filters** ➡ Tag Cloud* ➡ Query Box** ➡ Results List* ⤻ • Mouse movements: • movements to reach a feature, also to aid processing contents [Rodden08] •Focus here on mouse movements not leading to click • Tendencies mostly overlap with active interaction measure 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 1 2 3
  31. 31. 5.2 Passive Behaviour: eye fixations Stage 1 (exploration) Stage 2 (focus formulation) Stage 3 (postfocus, collection) • Overview of eye movement via heatmaps:
  32. 32. Passive behaviour: eye tracking eye tracking fixations 0 25 50 75 100 1 2 3 • Further insights via eye tracking fixation counts • fixations > 80 ms, similar to e.g. [Buscher08] Query Suggestions* ➡
  33. 33. Passive behaviour: eye tracking eye tracking fixations 0 25 50 75 100 1 2 3 Tag Cloud* ➡ • Further insights via eye tracking fixation counts • fixations > 80 ms, similar to e.g. [Buscher08] Query Suggestions* ➡
  34. 34. Passive behaviour: eye tracking eye tracking fixations 0 25 50 75 100 1 2 3 Category filters** ➡ Tag Cloud* ➡ • Further insights via eye tracking fixation counts • fixations > 80 ms, similar to e.g. [Buscher08] Query Suggestions* ➡
  35. 35. Passive behaviour: eye tracking eye tracking fixations 0 25 50 75 100 1 2 3 Category filters** ➡ Tag Cloud* ➡ Query Box** ➡ • Further insights via eye tracking fixation counts • fixations > 80 ms, similar to e.g. [Buscher08] Query Suggestions* ➡
  36. 36. Passive behaviour: eye tracking eye tracking fixations 0 25 50 75 100 1 2 3 Category filters** ➡ Tag Cloud* ➡ Query Box** ➡ Results List* ⤻ • Further insights via eye tracking fixation counts • fixations > 80 ms, similar to e.g. [Buscher08] Query Suggestions* ➡
  37. 37. 3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Tag Cloud [5.8% fixations ⬌ 3.1% clicks] Subtle differences between passive and active use:
  38. 38. 3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Query Suggestions [3.6% fix. ⬌ 1.9% clicks] Tag Cloud [5.8% fixations ⬌ 3.1% clicks] Subtle differences between passive and active use:
  39. 39. 3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Query Suggestions [3.6% fix. ⬌ 1.9% clicks] Tag Cloud [5.8% fixations ⬌ 3.1% clicks] Recent Queries [3% fix. ⬌ 2% clicks] Subtle differences between passive and active use:
  40. 40. 3.4 Passive Behaviour: Active vs. Passive 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Query Suggestions [3.6% fix. ⬌ 1.9% clicks] Tag Cloud [5.8% fixations ⬌ 3.1% clicks] Recent Queries [3% fix. ⬌ 2% clicks] Subtle differences between passive and active use: Opposite for Category Filters [5% ⬌ 3.8%]
  41. 41. 5.4 Passive Behaviour: Wrapup •Fixations & mouse moves • validating active behaviour • subtle differences active and passive use • Could subjective ratings and qualitative feedback provide more insights?
  42. 42. Findings: Perceived Feature Utility perceived usefulness (post-stage & experiment)6
  43. 43. 6.2 Perceived Usefulness: post-experiment • Post-experiment questionnaire: • In which stage or stages were SUI features most useful? • Pronounced differences • significant differences for all features 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Query Box / 
 Results List Category
 Filters Tag 
 Cloud Query 
 Suggestions Recent 
 Queries Saved 
 Results
  44. 44. 6.3 Perceived Usefulness: Category Filters • “good at the start (…) but later I wanted something more specific” (P.11) • common remarks in 2nd and 3rd stage: • “… could be more specific in its categories” • “…hard to find the category I want” (P. 27)
  45. 45. 6.3 Perceived Usefulness: Tag Cloud • at the start: • “…aids exploring the topic” (P.06); • “came up with words that I hadn’t thought of” • later stages: • “doesn’t help to narrow the search much” (P.18) • “in the end seemed to be too general” (P.07)
  46. 46. 6.3 Perceived Usefulness: Tag Cloud • at the start: • “…aids exploring the topic” (P.06); • “came up with words that I hadn’t thought of” • later stages: • “doesn’t help to narrow the search much” (P.18) • “in the end seemed to be too general” (P.07) • Post-experiment comments: • “…was good at the beginning, because when you are not exactly sure what you are looking for, it can give inspiration” (P.12) • “… nice to look at what other kinds of ideas [exist] that maybe you didn’t think of. Then one word may spark your interest” (P.15)
  47. 47. 6.3 Perceived Utility: Query Suggestions • “…was good at the start but as soon as I got more specific into my topic, that went down” (P.11) • “clicked [it] .. a couple of times .. it gave me sort of serendipitous results, which are useful” (P.24)
  48. 48. 6.3 Perceived Utility: Recent Queries • Naturally: “…most useful in the end because I had more searches from before” (P.26) • “The previous searches became more useful ‘as I made them’ because they were there and I could see what I searched before. I was sucking myself in and could work by looking at those.” (P.23) • May aid searchers in 
 their information journey..
  49. 49. 6.3 Perceived Utility: Saved Results • “most useful in the end” (P.12) • “At the start [I was] saving a lot of general things about different topics. Later on I went back to the saved ones for the topic I chose and then sort of went on from that and see what else I should search” (P.26) • “I just felt I was organizing my research a little bit” (P.18) • It “helps me to lay out the plans of my research”.
  50. 50. Conclusion towards more dynamic support7
  51. 51. 0%! 20%! 40%! 60%! 80%! 100%! Stage 1! Stage 2! Stage 3! Percentageofparticipants! input / informational! control! personalisable! Stage 2! Stage 3! input / informational! control! personalisable! Conclusion: Findings Summary • Informational features highly useful in most stages • Decreasing use of input features • Control features decreasingly useful • likely caused by a user’s evolving domain knowledge • Personalizable features increasingly useful • ‘growing’ with a user’s understanding, task management support SUI features perceived as most useful, per stage
  52. 52. 7. Conclusion: theoretical roundup complex information seeking task pre-focus stage: • vague understanding • limited domain knowledge • trouble expressing information need • large amount of new information • explaining prominent role of control features • explore information • filter result set using [Kuhlthau04,Vakkari&Hakkala00,Vakkari01]
  53. 53. 7. Conclusion: theoretical roundup complex information seeking task pre-focus stage: • vague understanding • limited domain knowledge • trouble expressing information need • large amount of new information • explaining prominent role of control features • explore information • filter result set focus formulation stage: • more directed search • better understanding • seeking more relevant information, using differentiated criteria • control features become less essential • “not specific enough” • personalizable feat’s more important: may “grow” with emerging understanding using [Kuhlthau04,Vakkari&Hakkala00,Vakkari01]
  54. 54. 7. Conclusion: theoretical roundup complex information seeking task pre-focus stage: • vague understanding • limited domain knowledge • trouble expressing information need • large amount of new information • explaining prominent role of control features • explore information • filter result set focus formulation stage: • more directed search • better understanding • seeking more relevant information, using differentiated criteria • control features become less essential • “not specific enough” • personalizable feat’s more important: may “grow” with emerging understanding postfocus stage • specific searches • re-checks additional information • precise expression • low uniqueness, high redundancy of info • long, precise, queries • further decline of control features • frequent use of personalizable features • “see what else to search” using [Kuhlthau04,Vakkari&Hakkala00,Vakkari01]
  55. 55. 7. Conclusion: Future Work •Our study: essay writing simulated work task • Extension to other types of complex tasks, user populations •Further research into task-aware search systems • additional features may be useful at different stages • e.g. user hints, assistance • improvement of current features
  56. 56. 7. Conclusion: towards dynamic SUIs •Most Web search systems converged over static and familiar designs • trialled features often struggled to provide value for searchers • perhaps impeding search [Diriye10] if introduced in simple tasks, or at the wrong moment •Our work provides insights into when SUI features are useful during search episodes • potential responsive and adaptive SUIs
  57. 57. References (1/2) [Ahlberg&Shneiderman94] C. Ahlberg and B. Shneiderman. Visual information seeking: Tight coupling of dynamic query filters with starfield displays. In CHI, pages 313–317. ACM, 1994. 
 [Buscher08] G. Buscher, A. Dengel, and L. van Elst. Eye movements as implicit relevance feedback. In CHI’08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 2991–2996. ACM, 2008. [Diriye10] A. Diriye, A. Blandford, and A. Tombros. When is system support effective? In Proc. IIiX, pages 55–64. ACM, 2010. [Diriye13] A. Diriye, A. Blandford, A. Tombros, and P. Vakkari. The role of search interface features during information seeking. In TPDL, volume 8092 of LNCS, pages 235–240. Springer, 2013. [Donato10] D. Donato, F. Bonchi, T. Chi, and Y. Maarek. Do You Want to Take Notes?: Identifying Research Missions in Yahoo! Search Pad. In Proc. WWW’10, pages 321–330, 2010. ACM. [Hearst09] M. A. Hearst. Search user interfaces. Cambridge University Press, 2009. [Hearst13] M. A. Hearst and D. Degler. Sewing the seams of sensemaking: A practical interface for tagging and organizing saved search results. In HCIR. ACM, 2013.
 [Huurdeman&Kamps14] H. C. Huurdeman and J. Kamps. From Multistage Information-seeking Models to Multistage Search Systems. In Proc. IIiX’14, pages 145–154, 2014. ACM [Kuhlthau91] C. C. Kuhlthau. Inside the search process: Information seek- ing from the user’s perspective. JASIS, 42:361–371, 1991. [Kuhlthau04] C. C. Kuhlthau. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. Libraries Unlimited, 2004. [Kules12] B. Kules and R. Capra. Influence of training and stage of search on gaze behavior in a library catalog faceted search interface. JASIST, 63:114–138, 2012. [LiuBelkin15] J. Liu and N. J. Belkin. Personalizing information retrieval for multi-session tasks. JASIST, 66(1):58–81, Jan. 2015. [Marchionini06] G. Marchionini. Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. CACM, 49(4):41–46, 2006. [Niu14] X. Niu and D. Kelly. The use of query suggestions during information search. IPM, 50:218–234, 2014. [Proulx06] P. Proulx, S. Tandon, A. Bodnar, D. Schroh, W. Wright, D. Schroh, R. Harper, and W. Wright. Avian Flu Case Study with nSpace and GeoTime. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST'06). IEEE, 2006.
  58. 58. References (2/2) [Toms11] E. G. Toms. Task-based information searching and retrieval. In Interactive Information Seeking, Behaviour and Retrieval. Facet, 2011. [Rodden08] K. Rodden, X. Fu, A. Aula, and I. Spiro. Eye-mouse coordination patterns on web search results pages. In CHI’08 Extended Abstracts, pages 2997–3002. ACM, 2008. [Shneiderman05] B. Shneiderman and C. Pleasant. Designing the user in- terface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson Education, 2005. [Tunkelang09] D. Tunkelang. Faceted search. Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services, 1(1):1–80, 2009. [Vakkari01] P. Vakkari. A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study. Journal of Documentation, 57:44–60, 2001. [White05] R. W. White, I. Ruthven, and J. M. Jose. A study of factors affecting the utility of implicit relevance feedback. In SIGIR, pages 35–42. ACM, 2005. [White09] R. W. White and R. A. Roth. Exploratory search: Beyond the query-response paradigm. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services, 1:1–98, 2009. [Wilson&schraefel08] M. L. Wilson and m. c. schraefel. A longitudinal study of exploratory and keyword search. In In Proc. JCDL’08, pages 52–56. ACM, 2008. [Wilson99] T. D. Wilson. Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55:249–270, 1999. [Wilson11] M. L. Wilson. Interfaces for information retrieval. In I. Ruthven and D. Kelly, editors. Interactive Information Seeking, Behaviour and Retrieval. Facet, 2011.
  59. 59. Acknowledgements • This research was supported by: • EPSRC Platform Grant EP/M000877/1 and • NWO Grant 640.005.001, WebART • Thanks to participants & reviewers, and
 Sanna Kumpulainen • Possibility to present this work here • SIGIR Student Travel Grant
  60. 60. Active & Passive Utility of Search Interface Features in different Information Seeking Task Stages Hugo C. Huurdeman, Max L. Wilson, Jaap Kamps University of Amsterdam, University of Nottingham huurdeman @ uva.nl, max.wilson @ nottingham.ac.uk, kamps @ uva.nl ACM CHIIIR conference, March 14, 2016 Chapel Hill, NC, USA dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2854957

×