Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Open Access Journal' keyword pg.1 of 1
20 AUGUST 2013

An improved method of studying the user/search process in user-system interactions

"A major 'user/search process' limitation identified by Kinsella and Bryant (1987) is the inability to isolate and characterise individual users of on–line systems in order to describe the pattern of their use. Users' perceptions of their searches are not recorded, transaction logs cannot measure the information needs that users' are unable to express in their search statements (input), and they cannot reflect users' satisfaction with search results (output). As Kurth states, '[the fact] that transaction logs are unable to address such cognitive aspects of on–line searching behaviour is a true limit of the methodology' (Kurth, 1993: 100). Supplementary research, such as questionnaires, protocol analysis and interviews, must be undertaken in order to build a fuller picture of searching behaviour, success and satisfaction."

(Griffiths, J. R., R. J. Hartley, et al., 2002)

Jillian R. Griffiths, R.J. Hartley and Jonathan P. Willson. (2002). "An improved method of studying user–system interaction by combining transaction log analysis and protocol analysis." Information Research 7(4).

TAGS

2002 • characterising users • cognitive actionsdata collectiondata gathering instruments • electronic information resources • end user studiesend-users • information needs • Information Research (journal) • information system evaluation • information-seeking • information-seeking behaviourinterview (research method) • Janet Kinsella • Jillian Griffiths • Jonathan Willson • limitations of quantitative methodologies • Martin Kurth • online systems • open access journalpatterns of usepeer-reviewed journal • Philip Bryant • protocol analysisqualitative dataquestionnaire • Richard Hartley • search and retrieval • search behaviour • search logging • search process • search results • search results satisfaction • search statements • searchersearching and browsing • searching behaviour • searching for information • success and satisfaction • supplementary research • system requirements • talk-aloud comments • think aloud (research method)transaction log analysis • transaction logging • transaction logging datatransaction logsusability testing • user search process • user-based evaluation • user-system interaction

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
09 JANUARY 2013

Journal of Digital Humanities

"The Journal of Digital Humanities (ISSN 2165–6673) is a comprehensive, peer–reviewed, open access journal that features the best scholarship, tools, and conversations produced by the digital humanities community in the previous quarter.

The Journal of Digital Humanities offers expanded coverage of the digital humanities in three ways. First, by publishing scholarly work beyond the traditional research article. Second, by selecting content from open and public discussions in the field. Third, by encouraging continued discussion through peer–to–peer review.

The Journal of Digital Humanities selects content from the Editors' Choice pieces from Digital Humanities Now, which highlights the best scholarship–in whatever form–that drives the field of digital humanities field forward. The Journal of Digital Humanities provides three additional layers of evaluation, review, and editing to the pieces initially identified by Digital Humanities Now.

The Journal of Digital Humanities and Digital Humanities Now are produced by the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media.

Editors: Daniel J. Cohen, Joan Fragaszy Troyano. Associate Editors: Sasha Hoffman, Jeri Wieringa.

1

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.