請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10373完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 唐牧群(Muh-Chyun, Tang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kai-Jie Chang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 張凱傑 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T21:24:25Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2010-08-20 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T21:24:25Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2010-08-20 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2010-08-20 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 卜小蝶、陳思穎(民96)。網路自動分群引擎之使用者評估研究。圖書
資訊學研究， 2(1): 55-80。 么新英(民92)。傳統資訊檢索與視覺化資訊檢索之比較。科技情報開 發與經濟，13(3)，1-2。 毛恆祥(民95)。分類架構與呈現之應用研究-以農委會農業知識管理 加值系統農業產業知識樹為例。未出版之碩士論文，私立世新大學 資訊傳播學系研究所，台北市。 官欣螢(民97)。Wiki資訊架構之可用性評估:以台灣棒球維基百科為 例。未出版之碩士論文，私立淡江大學資訊與圖書館學系研究所， 台北市。 許銀雄、何祖鳳、詹榮昌(民92)。網路人機介面可用性評估方法之比 較。銘傳學刊，13， 25-42。 吳美美，林珊如，黃慕萱(1999)。數位圖書館/博物館評鑑指標建構 探討。圖書資訊學學刊 ，14， 49-70。 陳向明(民91)。社會科學質的研究。台北市：五南。 陳思穎(民96)。自動分群搜尋引擎使用者評估研究。未出版之碩士 論文，國立師範大學圖書資訊研究所，台北市。 唐納.諾曼。（民94）。情感設計:我們為何喜歡(或討厭)日常用品。 台北市 : 田園城市文化。 蔡景祥(民94)。網路搜尋結果自動組織之研究。未出版之碩士論文， 國立台灣大學資訊管理學研究所，台北市。 蔡維君(民95)。大學圖書館好用性評估-以台大圖書館為例。未出版 之碩士論文，國立台灣大學圖書資訊學系研究所，台北市。 鍾雪珍（民97）。新版EBSCOhost 2.0資訊視覺化檢索介紹。國家圖 書館館訊，97:3，19-23。 Allan, J., Leuski, A. , Swan, R., & Byrd, D. (2001). Evaluating combination of ranked lists and visualization of inter-document similarity. Information Processing and Management , 37, 435–458. Amento,B., Terveen, L. & Hill,W. (2000). Does “Authority” Mean Quality? Predicting Expert Quality Ratings of Web Documents. Paper presented at the Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development. Ashby, F.G., Isen, A.M., & Turken, A.U. (1999). A neuropsychologicaltheory of positive effect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529– 550. Barnum, C.M. (2002).Usability testing and research. Barkhuus, L. & Rode, J. A. (2007). From Mice to Men: 24 Years.of Evaluation at CHI. Alt.Chi. Jansen, B. J., & Spink, A. (2005). How are we searching the World Wide Web? A comparison of nine large search engine transaction logs. Information Processing and Management, 42(1), 248-263. Belkin, N. J., Brooks, H. M. & Daniels, P. J. (1987). Knowledge elicitation using discourse analysis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 127-144. Bevan, N. (1995). Measuring usability as quality of use. Journal of Software Quality, 4, 115-130 .o Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 53, 225– 250. Card, S., Mackinlay, J. D., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think .San Francisco: Morgan. Catherine, Plaisant. (2004). The challenge of information visualization. Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, 109 – 116. Chang, S.-H. (1999). The current state of web search engines. OCLC Systems and Services, 15, 148–149. Chen, C. & Czerwinski, M. (2000). Empirical studies of information visualization: a meta-analysis. Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 53(5), 851–866. Chen, C. & Yu, Y. (2000) Empirical studies of information visualization: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 851-866. Chen, H. C., Houston, A. L., Sewell, R. R., & Schatz, B. R. (1998). Internet browsing and searching: Use revaluations of category map and concept space techniques. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(7), 582- 603. Chung, W., Chen, H., & Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. (2005). A visual framework for knowledge discovery on the Web: an empirical study of business intelligence exploration. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(4), 57–84. Cole, J. I., Suman, M., Schramm, P., Lunn, R., & Aquino, J. S. (2003).The internet report survey the digital future t hree years. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pdf/ucla-internet-report-year- three.pdf. Conati, C., & Maclaren, H. (2008). Exploring the role of individual differences information visualization. To appear in Proceeding of AVI 2008, International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, ACM Press. Delphi Group(2002). Taxonomy and Content Classification. Retrieved October 2 , 2009,from http://www.delphigroup.com/research/whitepaper_request_download.htm Denning, S., Hoiem, D., Simpson, M., & Sullivan, K. (1990). The value hinking-aloud protocols in Industry: a case study at microsoft corporation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. Dumais, S., Cutrell, E., & Chen, H. (2004). Optimizing search by showing results in context. Paper Presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,, United States, Ericsson, K. & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.), Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. Faisal.S, Carft.B, Caims,Pm., & Blanford, A. (2008).Internationlization , qualitative method and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Beyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for Infor3mation Visualization. Gabbard, J.L., Hix, D., & Swan II, J.E. (1999). User- centered design and evaluation of virtual environments, IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, 51-59. Genuis, S. K. (2004).Web site usability testing: A critical tool for libraries. Feliciter, 50(4), 161-164 Harter, S. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for information science , 43(9). Harter, S., & Hert, C. (1997). Evaluation of information retrieval system; approaches issues and methods. Annual Review of Information Science and technology, 32, 1-94. Heo, M., & Hirtle, S. (2001). An empirical comparison of visualization tools to assist information retrieval on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(8), 666–675. Hearst, M. (1999). The use of categories and clusters for organizing retrieval results. Natural language information retrieval, 333-374. Hearst, M.(2006). Clustering versus faceted categories for information exploration.Commun. ACM, 49 (4). 59-61. Hsieh-Yee, I. (2001). Research on web behavior. Library& Information science research, 23, 167-189. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L, & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta- analysis: cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Ingwersen, P. (2007). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation ,52(1), 3-50. Jain, K., Murty, M.N., & Flynn, P.J. (1999). Data clustering: a review. ACM Computing Surveys, 31(3). Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C., &Uyeda, K.M. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world : A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings ACM CHI'91 Conference, 119-124 Jeng .J. (2005). Usability assessment of academic digital libraries: effectivenss, efficiency，satisfaction, and learnability. Libri: International Journal of Libraries andInformation Services, 55(2/3), 96–121. Julien, C.-A. , Leide, J. E., & Bouthillier, F.(2008). Controlled User Evaluations of Information Visualization Interfaces for Text Retrieval: Literature Review and Meta- Analysis. JASIST, 59(6), 1012-1024. Kagolovsky, Y., & Moehr, J. (2003). Current status of the evaluation of Information retrieval. Journal of medical systems, 27(5), 409-424. Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. (1994). Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. Evaluating health care information systems: Methods and applications, 45-68. Kelly, D., & Cool, C. (2002). The effects of topic familiarity on information search behavior. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, 74-75. Koch, T., & Day, M. (1997). The role of classification schemes in internet resource description anddiscovery. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/desire/classification/classification.pdf. Korfhage, R. (1991). To see or not to see—Is that the query? 14th Annual International ACM/SIGIR Conference, (pp. 131-141). Chicago: ACM Press. Kosara, R., Healey, C. G., Interrante, V., Laidlaw, D. H., & Ware, C. (2003). User studies: Why, how, and when? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 272, 03. Koshman, S. (2004). Comparing usability between a visualization and text-based system for information retrieval. Journal of Documentation , 60(5), 565-580. Koshman, S. (2005). Testing user interaction with a prototype visualization-based information retrieval system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(8), 824–833. Koshman, S. (2006). Visualization-based information retrieval on the Web. Library and Information Science Research, 28(2), 192-207. Kowalski, G. J., & Maybury, M. T. (2003). Information Storage and Retrieval Systems(ch8). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Krishnapuram, R., & Kummamuru, K. (2003). Automatic taxonomy generation: issues and possibilities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2715, 52-63. Kules, B., Shneiderman, B.:(2005).Categorized graphical overviews for Web search results:An exploratory study using us. government agencies as a meaningful and stable structure. In: Proc. of the 3rd annual workshop on HCI Research in MIS. Kwasnik, B. H. (1992). The role of classification structures in reflecting and building theory. In R. Fidel, B. H. Kwasnik, & P. J. Smith (Eds.), Advances in classification research, vol. 3(Proceedings of the 3rd ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop) (pp. 63- 81). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, for the American Society for Information Science. Lee, H.-L. & Olson, H. A. (2005). Hierarchical Navigation: An Exploration of Yahoo! Directories. Knowledge Organization, 32(1), 10-24. Lin, X. (1997). Map displays for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 40–54. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C.(2000). Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing Design; Cambridge University Press.Mai, Jens-Erik. (2004). Classification of the Web: challenges and inquiries. Knowledge Organization, 31(2), 92-97. Marcus, A., Comorski, D., & Sergeyev, A. (2005). Supporting the evolution of a software visualization ool through usability studies. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Program Comprehension , 307–316. Mazza, R. & Berre, A. (2007). Focus group methodology for evaluating information visualization techniques and tools.Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Information Visualization. Morse, E., Lewis, M., & Olsen, K. (2002). Testing visual information retrieval methodologies case study: comparative analysis of textual, icon, graphical and “spring” displays. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 28–40. Nielsen, J. (1990). The art of navigating through hypertext. Communications of the ACM, 33(3), 297-310. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press. Nielsen Media. (1997). Search engines most popular method of surfing the web [Website]. Commerce Net/Nielsen Media. Retrieved 10.8.2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.commerce.net/news/press/0416.html. Nielsen, J. (2003). User empowerment and the fun factor. In M.A. Blythe, Nielsen, J. (2005).Mental models for search are getting firmer. Alertbox. Retrieved December 11, 2009 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050509.html Norman, D.A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love(or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Osdin. Nowell, L.T., France, R.K., Hix, D., Heath, L.S., & Fox, E.A. (1996). Visualizing search results: Some alternatives to query-document similarity. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(pp. 67–75). New York: ACM Press. NPD New Media Services. (2000). NPD search and portal site study. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from: http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/npd.html. Overbeeke, k., Monk, A.E., & Wright, P.C.(Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 103–105). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.. Rivadeneira, W., & Bederson, B. (2003). A study of search result clustering interfaces: Comparing textual and zoomable user interfaces. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from ftp://ftp.cs.umd.edu/pub/hcil/Reports-Abstracts- Bibliography/2003-36html/2003-36.htm. Rester, M., Pohl, M., Wiltner, S., Hinum, K., Miksch, S., Popow, C., & Ohmann, S. (2007). Mixing Evaluation Methods for Assessing the Utility of an Interactive InfoVis Technique. In J. Jacko (Ed.): Human-Computer Interaction, 604–613. Robins, D. (2000). Interactive information retrieval: context and basic notions. Information Science, 3(2), 57-62. Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct tests. New Work:Wiley. Samler, S., & Lewellen, K.(2004). Good taxonomy is key to successful searching. EContent, 27(7/8), S20. Saracevic, T. (1997). The stratified model of information retrieval interaction:Extension and application. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 34, 313-327. Sebrechts, M. M., Vasilakis, J., Miller, M. S., Cugini, J. V., & Laskowski, S. (1999). Visualization of search results: A comparative evaluation of text, 2D, and 3D interfaces. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Berkeley, CA (pp. 3–10). New York7 ACM Press. Shiaw, H.-Y., Jacob, R., & Crane, G. R. (2004). The 3D vase museum: a new approach to context in a digital library. In Proceedings of the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL'04), June 7-11, Tucson, Ariz, 125- 134. Shneiderman , B.(1992). Designing the User interface. Reading MA: Addison Wesley. Shneiderman, B. (1994). Dynamic Queries for Visual information Seeking; IEEE Software ,11(6), 70-77. Spink, A. (1997). Study of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(5), 382-394. Song, M. (2000). Visualization in information retrieval: a three-level analysis. Journal of Information Science, 26 (1), 3. Su, L. (1992). Evaluation measures for interactive information retrieval. Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, 28(4), 503-516. Sutcliffe, A. G., Ennis, M. & Hu, J. (2000). Evaluating the effectiveness of visual user interfaces for information retrieval. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(5) , 741-763. Swan, R. C. & Allan, J. (1998). Aspect windows, 3-D visualizations, and indirect comparisons of information retrieval systems. Paper presented at the SIGIR ’98, Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Melbourne, Australia (pp. 171–181). New York7 :ACM Press. Park, Albert. (2006). Intended Use Evaluation Approach for Information Visualization. Unpublished master dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Virginia. Pirolli, Peter, Schank, Patricia, Hearst, Marti, & Diehl, Christine, (1996) Scatter/gather bromunicates the topic structure of a very largewsing com text collection, Proc. of ACM CHI96 Conference , ACM, 213-220 Tague-Sutcliffe,J.(1996). Some perspectives on the evaluation of information retrieval systems. Journal of the American Society for information science, 47(1), 1-3. Tague-Sutcliffe,J.(1996). Some perspectives on the evaluation of information retrieval systems. Journal of the American Society for information science, 47(1), 1-3. Tang, M.-C. (2007). Browsing and searching in a facted information space: A naturalistic study of PubMed user's Interaction with a display tool. Journal of American society for information science and technology, 58(13), 1998-2006 Tang,M.C., Wu,W.C., & Hung., B.W. (2009). Evaluating a Metadata-based Term Suggestion Interface for PubMed with Real Users with Real Requests. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science & Technology Tory, M. & Moller, T.(2005). Evaluating visualizations: do expert reviews work?. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 25(5), 8-11. Tullis, Tom & Albert, Bill. (2008). Measuring the user experience. Turketen,O.,& Sharda., R.(2005).Clustering-Based Visual Interfaces for Presentation of Web Search Results: An Empirical Investigation. Information Systems Frontiers, 7(3), 273-297. V. González & A. Kobsa. (2003). A workplace study of the adoption of information visualization systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management, 92–102. Vakkari, P. & Hakala, N. (2000). Change in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal of Documentation, 56(5), 540–562. Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M. & Serola, S. (2003). Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal: a longitudinal case study. Information Processing & Management, 39(3), 445–463. Veerasamy, A., & Heikes, R. (1997). Effectiveness of a graphical display of retrieval results. In Proceedings of SIGIR’97, Philadelphia, 236-245 Veerasamy, A.& Belkin, N.J. (1996). Evaluation of a Tool for Visualization of Information Retrieval Results. In Frei, H.P. et al., (Eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 85-92 Ware, C. (2004). Information visualization: Perception for design(2nd ed.). San Francisco7 Morgan-Kaufmann. Wiley, D. L. (1998). Beyond information retrieval: Ways to provide content in context. Database, 21, 18–22. Retrieved Novemeber 1, 2009, from http://www.onlineinc.com/database/DB1998/wiley8.html. Wu, M., Fuller, M. & Wilkinson, R. (2001). Using clustering and classification approaches in interactive retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 37, 459- 484. Wu, Mei-Mei & Sonnenwald, Diane(1999). Reflection on Information Retrieval Evaluation. In Proceedings of 1999 EBTI, ECAI, SEER, & PNC Joint Meeting, Taipei, Academia Sinica, 63-81. Zeki, S. (1992). The visual image in mind and brain. Scientific American, 267(3), 69-76. Zhang, J. (2008). Visualization for Information Retrieval.Springer, New York, NY. Zhang, Y. (2008). The influence of mental models on undergraduate students' searching behavior on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 44(3), 1330-134 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10373 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 現今越來越多視覺化檢索工具應用於跨系統整合查詢。本研究為了要探索使用者如何和視覺化檢索工具進行互動，採用實證研究的方式，測試使用者在真實需求情境之下，如何使用EBSCOhost視覺化檢索介面（Column、Block介面）。
本研究的研究結果分成兩個部份：一部份是找出哪些好用性問題會影響使用者的使用經驗；另外一部份是了解使用圖形化搜尋是否會改變使用者的認知狀態以及查詢詞彙，其使用的方法包括：問卷調查法、深度訪談、回溯性放聲思考法、以及比較使用者在檢索前和檢索後的檢索詞彙。 本研究總共測試12位圖書資訊學領域的研究生，參與本研究的受試者必須事先準備一題檢索問題，當作本研究的檢索任務，之後會重複在視覺化檢索介面所提供的兩種介面（Column、Block介面），搜尋同樣的檢索問題。研究結果如下：（1）觀察使用者的檢索畫面以及分析訪談記錄，總共找出九項好用性問題，並且依照對於使用者任務的衝擊程度區分；（2）介面的確會影響使用者的查詢詞彙以及認知狀態，（3）根據使用者的意見，認為當使用者不熟悉新的研究領域之情境下，視覺化工具對於使用者幫助較大。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Nowadays, more and more visualization-based retrieval tools are applied to cross-system integrated search. To investigate how users might interact with visualization tools, an empirical study was conducted in which real users with real search request were asked to search alternately with “Column” and “Block” versions of EBSCOhost’s visualization-based information retrieval interface.
There were two parts of inqueries, one is to identify possible usability issues; there other is to see how the use of the interfaces might impact users’ cognitive states and queries. The Multiple methods were applied to acquire rich data to address those questions, including questionnaire, in-depth interview, retrospective think-aloud, and comparisons of users’ pre- and post- search queries. A total of 12 Master’s students in Library and Information Science participated in the study, each searched for their own task alternately on the two versions of the visualization tool, resulting in 24 search sessions. Nine usuability issues, with different degrees of severity, were identified. The interfaces were found to impact on users’ queries and cognitive states. Based on the participants’ comments, it was found that the visualization was more beneficial for search for new areas the users were not familiar with. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T21:24:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R95126013-1.pdf: 9155521 bytes, checksum: 3a8c090df9837f7fe7de8f54c138f172 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii 目次 iii 表目次 v 圖目次 vi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題陳述 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 5 第三節 研究範圍與限制 7 第四節 系統介面個案 8 第五節 名詞解釋 12 第二章 文獻分析 15 第一節 分類架構概念之探討 15 第二節 資訊視覺化技術應用於資訊檢索系統21 第三節 資訊視覺化介面評估方法26 第三章 研究設計與實施 51 第一節 研究方法與設計 51 第二節 研究工具與對象 57 第三節 研究變數與假設 60 第四節 研究與實驗流程 61 第四章 研究結果與分析 67 第一節 好用性問題之探討 69 第二節 視覺化檢索介面效用 80 第三節 綜合討論 121 第五章 結論與建議 125 第一節 結論 125 第二節 對於EBSCOhost建議 133 第三節 建議 135 第四節 後續研究建議 139 參考文獻 143 附錄一 實驗研究同意書 155 附錄二 基本資料問卷 157 附錄三 前測問卷（column）158 附錄四 後測問卷（column）159 附錄五 前測問卷（block） 161 附錄六 後測問卷（block） 162 附錄七 訪談大綱 164 附錄八 知識概念圖的範例 165 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 視覺化資訊檢索介面評估—以EBSCOhost 2.0為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Evaluation of Visualization-based Information Retrieval Interface- A Case Of EBSCOhost 2.0 | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 邱銘心(Ming-Hsin, Chiu),林頌堅(Sung-Chien, Lin) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 資訊視覺化,視覺化資訊檢索,好用性評估,視覺化資訊檢索介面, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | information visualization,visualization information retrieval,visualization, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 165 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2010-08-20 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 圖書資訊學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-99-1.pdf | 8.94 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。