Library and Information Service >
Relationships Between Dimensions of Human-Computer Interaction and Users’ Interaction Performance in Digital Libraries
Received date: 2013-12-09
Revised date: 2014-01-03
Online published: 2014-01-20
This study explores the relationships between users' interaction information seeking behaviors and users' interaction performance, by recruiting 42 undergraduates to participant in the experiment. Results indicate that different dimensions of interaction between users and digital libraries influence interaction performance in different degrees. An easy-to-use interface, clarity in navigation and appropriateness in information organization at the technology level, sufficiency in obtained information at the information level, and confidence in retrieving useful information at the task level, not only significantly affect but also predict interaction performance of users and digital libraries.
Li Yuelin , Xiao Xue , Tong Xiaoyun . Relationships Between Dimensions of Human-Computer Interaction and Users’ Interaction Performance in Digital Libraries[J]. Library and Information Service, 2014 , 58(02) : 38 -46,120 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2014.02.006
[1] Savage-Knepshield P, Belkin N J. Interaction in information retrieval: Trends over time[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1999, 50(12): 1067-1082.
[2] Ruthven I. Interactive information retrieval[J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2009, 44: 43-91.
[3] Zhang Xiangmin, Li Yuelin, Liu Jingjing,et al. Effects of interaction design in digital libraries on user interactions[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2008, 64(3):438-463.
[4] Ingwersen P. Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory[J]. Journal of Documentation, 1996, 52(1):3-50.
[5] Belkin N J, Cool C, Stein A,et al. Cases, scripts and information seeking strategies:On the design of interactive information retrieval systems[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 1995, 9(3): 379-395.
[6] Saracevic T. Modeling interaction in information retrieval (IR): a review and proposal[C]//Hardin S. Proceedings of the 59th ASIS Annual Meeting. Silver Spring, MD,USA: The American Society for Information Science,1996,33:3-9.
[7] House N A V, Butler M H, Ogle V, et al. User-centered iterative design for digital libraries: The cypress experience[EB/OL].[2014-01-01]. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february96/02vanhouse.html.
[8] Sumner T. Report on the Fifth ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries-Cyberinfrastructure for research and education[EB/OL].[2014-01-01].http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july05/sumner/07sumner.html.
[9] Vakkari P.Task-based information searching[J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2003,37(1):413-464.
[10] Bystrm K,Jrvelin K.Task complexity affects information seeking and use[J]. Information Processing & Management, 1995, 31(2): 191-213.
[11] Pharo N. A new model of information behaviour based on the search situation transition schema[J/OL]. Information Research, 2004,10(1).[2012-01-14]. http://informationR.net/ir/10-1/paper203.html.
[12] Landry C F. Work roles, tasks, and the information behavior of dentists[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006,57(14):1896-1908.
[13] Li Yuelin, Belkin N J. An exploration of the relationships between work task and interactive information search behavior[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010,61(9): 1771-1789.
[14] Kim K-S, Allen B. Cognitive and task influences on Web searching behavior[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002,53(2):109-119.
[15] Kim J.Describing and predicting information-seeking behavior on the Web[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009,60(4):679-693.
[16] Li Yuelin. An exploration of the relationships between work tasks and users' interaction performance[C/OL]//Grove A.Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting, 2010,47.[2012-01-17]. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/meet.14504701127/pdf.
[17] Tammaro A M, Marlino M. Digital library evaluation[EB/OL].[2014-01-01]. http://www.delos.info/files/pdf/DELOS_NSDL_sschool_07/Presentations/Marlino_Tammaro.pdf.
[18] Park S. Usability, user preferences, effectiveness, and user behaviors when searching individual and integrated full-text databases: Implications for digital libraries[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,2000,51(5): 456-468.
[19] Marchionini G, Plaisant C, Komlodi A. Interfaces and tools for the library of Congress National Digital Library Program[J]. Information Processing and Management,1998,34(5):535-555.
[20] Xie Hong Iris. Evaluation of digital libraries: Criteria and problems from users' perspectives[J]. Library & Information Science Research,2006,28(3):433-452.
[21] Saracevic T. Digital library evaluation:Toward evolution of concepts[J]. Library Trends,2000,49(2):350-369.
[22] Saracevic T. Evaluation of digital libraries: An overview[EB/OL].[2014-01-01].http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/DL_evaluation_Delos.pdf.
[23] Theng Y L, Mohd-Nasir N, Thimbleby H. Purpose and usability of digital libraries[EB/OL].[2014-01-01].http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csharold/cv/files/dl00-purpose.pdf.
[24] Thong Jams Y L, Hong Weiyin, Kar-Yam Tam. Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries:What are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences?[J]. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 2002,57(3):215-242.
[25] Bertot J C, Snead J T, Jaeger P T, et al. Functionality, usability, and accessibility:Iterative user-centered evaluation strategies for digital libraries[J].Performance Measurement and Metrics,2006,7(1):17-28.
[26] International Standards Organization. ISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) — Part 11: Guidance on usability[EB/OL].[2014-01-01].http://www.userfocus.co.uk/resources/iso9241/part11.html.
[27] Hilbert D M, Redmiles D F. Extracting usability information from user interface events[EB/OL].[2014-01-01]. ftp://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/eden/papers/journals/1999/acmcs/acmcs99.pdf.
[28] Zhang Ying.Developing a holistic model for digitallibrary evaluation[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1): 88-110.
[29] Buchanan S, Salako A. Evaluating the usability and usefulness of a digital library[J]. Library Review,2009,58(9):638-651.
[30] Abran A, Khelifi A, Suryn W. Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards[J]. Software Quality Journal, 2003,11(4): 325-338.
[31] Tsakonas G, Papatheodorou C. Analyzing and evaluating usefulness and usability in electronic information services[J]. Journal of Information Science,2006,32(5):400-419.
[32] Jeng Judy. What is usability in the context of the digital library and how can it be measured[J]. Information Technology and Libraries,2005,24(2):47-56.
[33] Joo S, Lee J Y. Measuring the usability of academic digital libraries: Instrument development and validation[J]. Electronic Library, 2011,29(4):523-537.
[34] Dicks R S. Mis-usability:On the uses and misuses of usability testing[EB/OL].[2014-01-01]. http://pdf.aminer.org/000/591/972/mis_usability_on_the_uses_and_misuses_of_usability_testing.pdf.
[35] Folmer E, Bosch J. Architecting for usability:A survey[J].The Journal of Systems and Software, 2004,70(1-2):61-78.
[36] Kani-Zabihi E, Ghinea G, Chen Sherry Y.Digital libraries: What do users want?[J]. Online Information Review, 2006, 30(4):395-412.
[37] Cool C, Belkin N J. A classification of interactions with information[EB/OL].[2014-01-01]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.86.8077&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
[38] Saracevic T. Relevance:A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1975, 26(6):321-343.
[39] Saracevic T. Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II:Nature and manifestations of relevance[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(13):1915-1933.
[40] Saracevic T. Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. part III:Behavior and effects of relevance[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(13):2126-2144.
[41] Belkin N J. On the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems[EB/OL].[2014-01-01].http://mss3.libraries.rutgers.edu/dlr/outputds.php?pid=rutgers-lib:29084&mime=application/pdf&ds=PDF-1.
[42] Borlund P, Ingwersen P.The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems[J]. Journal of Documentation,1997,53(3):225-250.
[43] Li Yuelin, Belkin N J. A faceted approach to conceptualizing task in information seeking[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2008,44(6):1822-1837.
[44] Li Yuelin, Hu Die.Interactive retrieval using simulated versus real work task situations: Differences in sub-facets of tasks and interaction performance[C/OL].Grove A.Proceedings of the 76th ASIS&T Annual Meeting,50.[2013-12-06]. http://www.asis.org/asist2013/proceedings/openpage.html.
[45] Li Yuelin. Investigating the relationships between facets of work task and selection and query-related behavior[J]. Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science,2012,5(1):51-69.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
