ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
What do exploratory searchers look at in a faceted search interface?
Full text PdfPdf (672 KB)
Source
International Conference on Digital Libraries archive
Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries table of contents
Austin, TX, USA
SESSION: 11 table of contents
Pages 313-322  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-322-8
Authors
Bill Kules  The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
Robert Capra  University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Matthew Banta  The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
Tito Sierra  North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Sponsors
SIGIR: ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval
SIGWEB: ACM Special Interest Group on Hypertext, Hypermedia, and Web
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 72,   Downloads (12 Months): 237,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   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/10.1145/1555400.1555452
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This study examined how searchers interacted with a web-based, faceted library catalog when conducting exploratory searches. It applied eye tracking, stimulated recall interviews, and direct observation to investigate important aspects of gaze behavior in a faceted search interface: what components of the interface searchers looked at, for how long, and in what order. It yielded empirical data that will be useful for both practitioners (e.g., for improving search interface designs), and researchers (e.g., to inform models of search behavior). Results of the study show that participants spent about 50 seconds per task looking at (fixating on) the results, about 25 seconds looking at the facets, and only about 6 seconds looking at the query itself. These findings suggest that facets played an important role in the exploratory search process.


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
Antelman, K., Lynema, E., & Pace, A. (2006). Toward a 21st Century Library Catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(3), 128--139.
 
2
 
3
Borlund, P. (2000). Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1), 71--90.
 
4
Borlund, P. (2003). The IIR evaluation model: A framework for evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Information Research, 8(3), paper no. 152. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from http://informationr.net/ir/8-3/paper152.html.
 
5
6
7
8
9
 
10
Hearst, M. (2006). Design recommendations for hierarchical faceted search interfaces. Paper presented at the ACM SIGIR 2006 Workshop on Faceted Search. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://flamenco.berkeley.edu/papers/faceted--workshop06.pdf.
11
 
12
Henderson, L., & Tallman, J. I. (2006). Stimulated recall methodology. In Stimulated recall and mental models: Tools for teaching and learning computer information literacy (pp. 55--91). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
13
 
14
Jacob, R. & and Karn, K. (2003) Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research: Ready to Deliver the Promises (Section Commentary), in The Mind's Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, ed. by J. Hyona, R. Radach, and H. Deubel, pp. 573--605, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.
 
15
Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361--371.
 
16
Kules, B., & Capra, R. (2008) Creating exploratory tasks for a faceted search interface. Paper presented at the Second Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction (HCIR 2008).
 
17
 
18
Library of Congress (2008). On the Record: Report of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. Retrieved September 13, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf.
 
19
 
20
Lown, C. (2008). A Transaction Log Analysis of NCSU's Faceted Navigation OPAC. Master's paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2008.
 
21
22
 
23
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 3.
24
 
25
Tunkelang, D. (2006). Dynamic Category Sets: an approach for faceted search. Paper presented at the ACM SIGIR 2006 Workshop on Faceted Search. Retrieved September 27, 2007, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~quixote/DynamicCategorySets.pdf.
 
26
 
27
Vakkari, P. (2001). A theory of the task--based information retrieval process: A summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 44--60.
28
29
30
31
 
32
Zhang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2007). User research and testing of FRBR prototype systems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST).

Collaborative Colleagues:
Bill Kules: colleagues
Robert Capra: colleagues
Matthew Banta: colleagues
Tito Sierra: colleagues