Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Flexible Search and Navigation using Faceted Metadata PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Flexible Search and Navigation using Faceted Metadata

Flexible Search and Navigation using Faceted Metadata

364 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Flexible Search and Navigation using Faceted Metadata

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

    Slide 1:Flexible Search and Navigation using Faceted Metadata

    Prof. Marti Hearst University of California, Berkeley Search Engines Meeting, April 2002 Research funded by: NSF CAREER Grant, NSF IIS-9984741

    Slide 2:The Flamenco Project Team

    Ame Elliott Jennifer English Marti Hearst Rashmi Sinha Kirsten Swearingen Ping Yee http://bailando.sims.berkeley.edu/flamenco.html

    Slide 3:Motivation

    Web search works well now Gets people to the appropriate web sites Finds starting points Web SITE search is NOT ok Results still overwhelming Not well-integrated with the information architecture People prefer to follow links anyhow

    Slide 4:Recent Study by Vividence Research

    Spring 2001, 69 web sites 70% eCommerce 31% Service 21% Content 2% Community The most common problems: 53% had poorly organized search results 32% had poor information architecture 32% had slow performance 27% had cluttered home pages 25% had confusing labels 15% invasive registration 13% inconsistent navigation

    Slide 5:Following Hyperlinks

    Works great when it is clear where to go next Frustrating when the desired directions are undetectable or unavailable Free Text Search Can specify anything Can result in a disorganized mess

    Slide 6:An Analogy

    hypertext Wanted: An All TerTrain Vehicle!

    Slide 7:Main Idea

    Integrate the search seamlessly into the information architecture Use hierarchical metadata to Allow flexible navigation Provide query previews Organize search results Both expand and refine the search

    Slide 8:The Challenges

    Users dont like new search interfaces How to show lots more information without overwhelming or confusing?

    Slide 9:Main Idea

    Use metadata to show where to go next More flexible than canned hyperlinks Less complex than full search Help users see and return to what happened previously

    Slide 10:An Important Trend in Information Architecture Design

    Generating web pages from databases Implications: Web sites can adapt to user actions Web sites can be instrumented

    Slide 11:A Taxonomy of WebSites

    low low high high Complexity of Applications Complexity of Data From: The (Short) Araneus Guide to Website development, by Mecca, et al, Proceedings of WebDB99, http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~cluet/WEBDB/procwebdb99.html

    Slide 12:Faceted Metadata

    Slide 13:Metadata: data about data Facets: orthogonal categories

    This is an abrupt transition from workspace. I think some kind of title slide goes between. I think your saying that metadata can be used (in conjunction with) workspaces to further restrict search but now would be a good time to have a navigation slide. This is an abrupt transition from workspace. I think some kind of title slide goes between. I think your saying that metadata can be used (in conjunction with) workspaces to further restrict search but now would be a good time to have a navigation slide.

    Slide 14:Faceted Metadata: Biomedical MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) www.nlm.nih.org/mesh

    Slide 15:Mesh Facets (one level expanded)

    Slide 16:Questions we are trying to answer

    How many facets are allowable? Should facets be mixed and matched? How much is too much? Should hierarchies be progressively revealed, tabbed, some combination? How should free-text search be integrated?

    Slide 17:How NOT to do it

    Yahoo uses faceted metadata poorly in both their search results and in their top-level directory They combine region + other hierarchical facets in awkward ways

    Slide 18:Yahoos use of facets

    Slide 19:Yahoos use of facets

    Slide 20:Yahoos use of facets

    Slide 21:Yahoos use of facets

    Where is Berkeley? College and University > Colleges and Universities >United States > U > University of California > Campuses > Berkeley U.S. States > California > Cities >Berkeley > Education > College and University > Public > UC Berkeley

    Slide 22:Problem with Metadata Previews as Currently Used

    Hand edited, predefined Not tailored to task as it develops Not personalized Often not systematically integrated with search, or within the information architecture in general This is the same as slide 45This is the same as slide 45

    Slide 23:Recipe Collection Examples

    From soar.berkeley.edu (a poor example) From www.epicurious.com (a good example)

    Slide 30:Epicurious Metadata Usage

    Advantages Creates combinations of metadata on the fly Different metadata choices show the same information in different ways Previews show how many recipes will result Easy to back up Supports several task types Help me find a summer pasta,'' (ingredient type + event type), How can I use an avocado in a salad?'' (ingredient type + dish type), How can I bake sea-bass'' (preparation type + ingredient type)

    Slide 31:Metadata usage in Epicurious

    Recipe

    Slide 32:Metadata usage in Epicurious

    Slide 33:Metadata usage in Epicurious

    Slide 34:Metadata usage in Epicurious

    I >

    Slide 35:Metadata usage in Epicurious

    I > Prepare Cuisine I Select

    Slide 36:Recipe Information Architecture

    Information design Recipes have five types of metadata categories Cuisine, Preparation, Ingredients, Dish, Occasion Each category has one level of subcategories

    Slide 37:Recipe Information Architecture

    Navigation design Home page: show top level of all categories Other pages: A link on an attribute ANDS that attribute to the current query; results are shown according to a category that is not yet part of the query A change-view link does not change the query, but does change which categorys metadata organizes the results

    Slide 38:Epicurious Basic Search

    Lacks integration with metadata

    Slide 40:Epicurious: Usability Study

    People liked the browsing-style metadata-based search and found it helpful People sometimes preferred the advanced search For more constrained tasks But zero results are frustrating People dissprefer the standard simple search

    Slide 41:Missing From Epicurious

    How to scale? Hierarchical facets Larger collection How to integrate search? How to allow expansion in addition to refinement?

    Slide 42:Metadata Interface for Image Search

    Slide 43:Current Approaches to Image Search

    Visual Content and Cues, e.g., QBIC (Flickner et al. 95) Blobworld (Carson et al. 99) Body Plans (Forsyth & Fleck 00) Color, texture, shape Move through a similarity space Keyword based Piction (Srihari 91) WebSeek (Smith and Jain 97) Google image search

    Slide 44:Architects and City Planners

    Common activitie: Use images for inspiration Browsing during early stages of design Collage making, sketching, pinning up on walls This is different than illustrating powerpoint Maintain sketchbooks & shoeboxes of images Young professionals have ~500, older ~5k No formal organization scheme None of 10 architects interviewed about their image collections used indexes Do not like to use computers to find images

    Slide 45:The Collection

    ~40,000 images from the UCB architecture slide library The current database and interface is called SPIRO Very rich, faceted, hierarchical metadata

    Slide 46:Architects Image Use

    Common activitie: Use images for inspiration Browsing during early stages of design Collage making, sketching, pinning up on walls This is different than illustrating powerpoint Maintain sketchbooks & shoeboxes of images Young professionals have ~500, older ~5k No formal organization scheme None of 10 architects interviewed about their image collections used indexes Do not like to use computers to find images

    Slide 47:Development Timeline

    Needs assessment. Interviewed architects and conducted contextual inquiries. Lo-fi prototyping. Showed paper prototype to 3 professional architects. Design / Study Round 1. Simple interactive version. Users liked metadata idea. Design / Study Round 2: Developed 4 different detailed versions; evaluated with 11 architects; results somewhat positive but many problems identified. Matrix emerged as a good idea. Metadata revision. Compressed and simplified the metadata hierarchies Design / Study Round 3. New version based on results of Round 2 Highly positive user response

    Slide 48:The Interface

    Nine hierarchical facets Matrix SingleTree Chess metaphor Opening Middlegame Endgame Tightly Integrated Search Expand as well as Refine Intermediate pages for large categories

    Slide 57:Usability Study on Round 3

    19 participants Architecture/City Planning background Two versions of the interface Tree (one hierarchical facet at a time) Matrix (multiple hierarchical facets) Several tasks Subjective responses All highly positive Very strong desire to use the interface in future Will replace the current SPIRO interface

    Slide 58:Study Tasks

    High Constraint Search: Find images with metadata assigned from 3 facets (e.g., exterior views of temples in Lebanon) 1.1) Start by using a Keyword Search 1.2) Start by Browsing (clicking a hyperlink) 1.3) Start by using method of choice Low Constraint Search: Find a low-constraint set of images (metadata in one facet) Specific Image Search: Given a photograph and no other info, find the same image in the collection Browse for Images of Interest

    Slide 59:Interface Evaluation

    Users rated Matrix more highly for: Usefulness for design work Seeing relationships between images Flexibility Power On all except find this image task, users also rated the Matrix higher for: Feeling on track during search Feeling confident about having found all relevant images

    Slide 60:Overall Preferences: Matrix vs. Tree

    Slide 61:User Comments - Matrix

    Easier to pursue other queries from each individual page Powerful at limiting and expanding result sets. Easy to shift between searches. Keep better track of where I am located as well as possible places to go from there. Left margin menu made it easy to view other possible search queries, helped in trouble-shooting research problems. Interface was friendlier, easier, more helpful. I understood the hierarchical relationships better.

    Slide 62:User Comments Tree

    Pro Simple More typical of other search engines Id use Visually simpler and more intuitiveMatrix a bit overwhelming with choices. Con I found SingleTree difficult to use when I had to refine my search on a search topic which I was not familiar with. I found myself guessing. SingleTree required more thought to use and to find specific images. I do not trust my typng and spelling skills. I like having categories.

    Slide 63:Task Completion Times

    (Find Image is an artificial task: given a photo and no other info, find it in the collection.)

    Slide 64:When Given A Choice

    For each interface, one task allowed the user to start with either a keyword search or the hyperlinks. 3 chose to search in both interfaces 11 chose to browse in both interfaces 4 chose to search in Matrix, browse in Tree 1 chose to browse in Matrix, search in Tree

    Slide 65:Feature Usage (%) Refining

    Slide 66:Feature Usage Expanding / Starting Over

    Slide 67:Feature Usage (%) Types of Actions

    Slide 68:Interface Evaluation

    Users rated Matrix more highly for: Usefulness for design work Seeing relationships between images Flexibility Power On all except find this image task, users also rated the Matrix higher for: Feeling on track during search Feeling confident about having found all relevant images

    Slide 69:Application to Medline

    Slide 70:Summary and Conclusions

    Slide 71:Summary

    Two Usability Studies Completed Recipes: 13,000 items Architecture Images: 40,000 items Conclusions: Users like and are successful with the dynamic faceted hierarchical metadata, especially for browsing tasks Very positive results, in contrast with studies on earlier iterations Note: it seems you have to care about the contents of the collection to like the interface

    Slide 72:Summary

    Validating an approach to web site search Use hierarchical faceted metadata dynamically, integrated with search Many difficult design decisions Iterating and testing was key Bits and pieces were there in industry The approach is being picked up too One is very similar now: endeca.com

    Slide 73:Summary

    We have addressed several interface problems: How to seamlessly integrate metadata previews with search Show search results in metadata context Disambiguate search terms How to show hierarchical metadata from several facets The matrix view Show one level of depth in the matrix view How to handle large metadata categories Use intermediate pages How to support expanding as well as refining Still working on it to some extent

    Slide 74:Advantages of the Approach

    Supports different search types Highly constrained known-item searches Open-ended, browsing tasks Can easily switch from one mode to the other midstream Can both expand and refine Allows different people to add content without breaking things Can make use of standard technology

    Slide 75:Some Unanswered Questions

    How to integrate with relevance feedback (more like this)? Would like to use blobworld-like features How to incorporate user preferences and past behavior? How to combine facets to reflect tasks?

    Slide 76:Thank you!

    bailando.sims.berkeley.edu/flamenco.html For more information: