DfR Final Presentation


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

DfR Final Presentation

  1. 1. Team JSTOR/Group 1:<br />Morgan Burton Isabela Carvalho Stan (Tze-Hsiang) Lin Leo (Lei) Shi <br />Data for Research (DfR) for JSTOR<br />
  2. 2. Introduction to DfR<br />System that includes metadata, information visualization, and article retrieval for JSTOR articles<br />JSTOR is a major database of scholarly articles<br />Provides “facets” or “selectors” that allow the user to filter their search based on specific elements such as journal, author, and discipline<br />Provides graphs that update dynamically based on search query<br />User base:<br />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)<br />
  3. 3. Methods<br />Interaction map<br />Provides a map of the sections of the site <br />Personas and Scenarios<br />A glimpse at what the typical user and situation might be for the system<br />5 Interviews conducted on potential users<br />Comparative Analysis<br />We assessed several competitive systems including Google Scholar and NINES<br />Survey<br />We surveyed over 20 target users<br />Heuristic Evaluation<br />An evaluation of general usability principles <br />Usability Testing of 5 target users<br />
  4. 4. Chart for interaction map<br />Diff. Views: <br />Charts, Graph<br />Results List<br />Keyterm Cloud<br />Whole<br />Data Set<br />Of DfR<br />Refined<br />Data Set<br />Narrowing <br />Down by USER<br />
  5. 5. Finding: The overall purpose of DfR is clear to users at first glance – prior to interacting with the system<br />Usability testing result: we tested prior finding from heuristic analysis that purpose of site might be unclear at first glance<br />We asked users to fill out pre-task assessments where we asked them to answer questions about their expectation of the system<br />Form asked users about what their general idea of the site was<br />Result: User expectation matched what site was about and accurately inferred relationship to JSTOR<br />
  6. 6. Evidence and recommendation<br />Some answers provided by users:<br />“The statistics about the publications, categorized by publication year, discipline.”<br />“I think it's a site that gives information about articles published on certain topics.”<br />“Searching for scholarly articles by date and discipline/area.”<br />“This is a websites showing some statistics about paper publications and properties in JSTOR.”<br />Recommendation: (contrary to prior finding) do not include an explanatory sentence on the main page about DfR<br />Users have a good sense of what DfR is and what its relationship to JSTOR is<br />6<br />
  7. 7. Finding: lack of visual indication of interrelationship between search and select features<br />   ’Results list’, ‘key term’, and ‘references profile’ features are tightly linked to the main search<br /> 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<br />There is a hierarchy<br />Evidence: usability test<br />Some users did not understand that under the article list they would see the results of the search done on the main page<br />
  8. 8. Comparison of versions<br />Location indicates incorrect hierarchy<br />Current Version<br />Appearance of being in the same frame indicates closer relationship<br />Previous Version<br />
  9. 9. Older version took advantage of proximity <br />
  10. 10. Recommendation <br />Move search bar to a higher level in order to indicate the hierarch between search and given search elements: the given elements are under the search level<br />Have the links placed under the search bar, inside the grey box.<br />
  11. 11. Cognitive model & usability<br /><ul><li>Designer v. User</li></ul>“It’s like Google Scholar”<br />Instances of expectations v. reality using Data for Research<br /><ul><li>Search
  12. 12. Key Terms</li></ul>Finding: The cognitive model of users and design of DfR are divergent. <br />
  13. 13. The way people think for the purposes of comprehension and prediction <br />Significance: for people to understand how to use the Data for Research tool, designers must understand the way they already think<br />Usability: After purpose, there must be positive interaction in function for repeat use <br />Cognitive Model: Defined<br />
  14. 14. “It’s like Google Scholar” (but it isn’t!)<br />
  15. 15. Refined<br />Data Set<br />#1<br />Refined<br />Data Set<br />#2<br />Refined<br />Data Set<br />#1<br />Refined<br />Data Set<br />#2<br />Whole<br />Data Set<br />Of DfR<br />Whole<br />Data Set<br />Search #1<br />Search #2<br />Search #2 IF NOT “Clear All”<br />Search #1<br />Other Database Search<br />Search in DfR<br />
  16. 16. Instance: Search aggregation <br />- search terms accumulate, rather than reset on new search<br />(EXCEPT WHEN going directly to index)<br />
  17. 17. Instance: Keyword searching + blank spaces <br />- all produce DIFFERENT search results <br />- punctuations have different treatment in the DfR interface<br />
  18. 18. Recommendations<br />Search aggregation: <br />Clearer path for new search vs. adjusting current search (“New Search” button)<br />Keyword punctuation:<br />Choose & specify one punctuation as AND operator<br />Clarify how search results are accumulated (using all terms? listing by articles and journals with higher frequency?)<br />
  19. 19. Search record is crucial to researchers - must keep track of information they gather<br />Duplication of search in results view indicates system action to users<br />Instances <br />After-search feedback<br />Facets/Selectors<br />Finding: A lack of DfR system feedback left searches with unclear meanings.<br />
  20. 20. Lack of system feedback before and after making a search <br />- No tracking or matching of search terms<br /> No indication that anything has happened! <br />- Selection criteria box is not prominent enough to notice<br />
  21. 21. Facets/Selectors<br />New version:<br />Not intuitive that the NAMES are links<br />Further, cannot determine what they are doing to the results<br />(start with selection ALL included?)<br />Older version:<br />Check and “X” boxes<br />Much clearer<br /><ul><li> intuitive as to what is happening when “checking” (adding) or “X”-ing (subtracting) aspect of information </li></li></ul><li>Recommendations<br />Search Feedback: <br />Additional feedback after search that indicates search has been performed<br />Google Scholar model: redundancy WORKS!<br />Header renaming to “Search Results” <br />Facet/Selector Appearance:<br />Reinstate the "X" function for all selectors (option to eliminate from results or from search entirely)<br />Reinstate "checkmark" function for facets that have been eliminated or are not included in the results.  <br />
  22. 22. Summary<br />For (finding 1)...for marketing purposes, a description of DfR is NOT needed on the main page - it’s intuitive to users! <br />For (finding 2)...take advantage of X to Y. <-- not sure what to put here. <br />For (finding 3)...similar cognitive models will lead to positive interactions between the system and new users. <br />For (finding 4)...clear feedback leads to discernible meaning of search results. <br />