ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Improved search engines and navigation preference in personal information management
Full text PdfPdf (151 KB)
Source
ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) archive
Volume 26 ,  Issue 4  (September 2008) table of contents
Article No. 20  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISSN:1046-8188
Authors
Ofer Bergman  Sheffield University, Sheffield, UK
Ruth Beyth-Marom  The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Rafi Nachmias  Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Noa Gradovitch  Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Steve Whittaker  Sheffield University, Sheffield, UK
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 60,   Downloads (12 Months): 574,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1402256.1402259
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Traditionally users access their personal files mainly by using folder navigation. We evaluate whether recent improvements in desktop search have changed this fundamental aspect of Personal Information Management (PIM). We tested this in two studies using the same questionnaire: (a) The Windows Studya longitudinal comparison of Google Desktop and Windows XP Search Companion, and (b) The Mac Studya large scale comparison of Mac Spotlight and Sherlock. There were few effects for improved search. First, regardless of search engine, there was a strong navigation preference: on average, users estimated that they used navigation for 56-68% of file retrieval events but searched for only 4-15% of events. Second, the effect of improving the quality of the search engine on search usage was limited and inconsistent. Third, search was used mainly as a last resort when users could not remember file location. Finally, there was no evidence that using improved desktop search engines leads people to change their filing habits to become less reliant on hierarchical file organization. We conclude by offering theoretical explanations for navigation preference, relating to differences between PIM and Internet retrieval, and suggest alternative design directions for PIM systems.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
 
3
4
 
5
Belkin, N. J., Cool, C., Stein, A., and Thiel, U. 1995. Cases, scripts, and information-seeking strategies: On the design of interactive information retrieval systems. Expert Syst. Applic. 9, 379--395.
 
6
7
 
8
Bergman, O. 2006. The use of subjective attributes in personal information management systems. PhD. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 135.
 
9
10
 
11
 
12
Boardman, R. 2004. Improving tool support for personal information management. PhD. dissertation, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, London. 285.
13
 
14
 
15
16
17
18
19
20
 
21
Farina, P. A. 2005. A comparison of two desktop search engines: Google Desktop Search (beta) vs. Windows XP Search Companion. In Proceedings of the 21st Computer Science Seminar. Hartford CT.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
 
31
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
 
32
Lansdale, M. W. 1988. The psychology of personal information management. Appl. Ergonomics 19, 55--66.
 
33
Lowe, M. 2006. Evaluation of desktop search applications. Tech. rep. Kalio, Sydney, Australia.
34
35
 
36
 
37
Piaget, J. 1928. Judgement and Reasoning in the Child. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.
 
38
39
 
40
Russell, D. and Lawrence, S. 2007. Search everything. In Personal information management, W. Jones and J. Teevan, Eds., University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 153--166.
 
41
42
 
43
Teevan, J., Capra, R. G., and Pérez-Quiñones, M. A. 2007. How people find personal information. In Personal Information Management, W. Jones and J. Teevan, Eds. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 22--34.
 
44
Tulving, E. and Thomson, D. M. 1973. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psych. Rev. 80, 342--373.
45
46


Collaborative Colleagues:
Ofer Bergman: colleagues
Ruth Beyth-Marom: colleagues
Rafi Nachmias: colleagues
Noa Gradovitch: colleagues
Steve Whittaker: colleagues