How taxonomies and facets bring end-users closer to big data
Anna Divoli@annadivoli
Boston Oct 2012
Taxonomies
• τάξις/τάξη + νομία (arrangement/class + method/rule/law)• hierarchical classification • formal nomenclature • varied dimensions • evaluation/measures/metrics• types: manually constructed, social, auto-generated• purposes: auto-indexing, search facilitation, navigation,
knowledge management, organization….• it is OK to change the classification systems to adjust to new
knowledge – not just adding new concepts • the data have become “big” and available but not accessible• many “end users”
Boston Oct 2012
User Studies Types
Specialized domain studies:
1. Facets (HCIR): Biomedical Scientists
2. Expert needs (media group)
UI preferred features studies:
3. Existing popular systems (EuroHCIR)
4. Mock ups of specific features (survey)
Boston Oct 2012
Anna Divoli and Alyona Medelyan Search interface feature evaluation in biosciences, HCIR 2011, Google, Mountain View, CA
Matthew Pike, Max L. Wilson, Anna Divoli and Alyona MedelyanCUES: Cognitive Usability Evaluation System, EuroHCIR 2012, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Boston Oct 2012
Our studies
1. Facets (HCIR): Biomedical ScientistsAnna Divoli and Alyona Medelyan Search interface feature evaluation in biosciences, HCIR 2011, Google, Mountain View, CA
Facets – favorite feature for search systems
Boston Oct 2012
Anna Divoli and Alyona Medelyan, Search interface feature evaluation in biosciences, HCIR 2011, Google, Mountain View, CA, USA
Boston Oct 2012
Facets (in search systems)
animal models huntington disease
Bio-Facets Most liked Least liked
Boston Oct 2012
animal models huntington disease
Facets as search features for biomedical scientists: Findings
• Faceted search is the most important stand alone feature in a search interface for bioscientists.
• Few, query-oriented facets presented as checkboxes work best.
• Overly simple aesthetics, although not desirable, do not hurt overall UI score.
• Complex aesthetics turn users away from the systems.
• Bioscientists prefer tools that help them narrow their search, not expand it.
• For generic search: doc-based facets. For domain-specific search: query-based facets.
Boston Oct 2012
Facets as search feature: likes & dislikes
Boston Oct 2012
• Useful categories• Simple• Vertical list
• Too complex/busy• Too many colors• Poor design• Limited functionality • Too many symbols• Not special/ Colorless
Boston Oct 2012
Our studies
2. Expert needs (media group)
Case Study: Media Group
They have a system/”taxonomy” in place that nobody maintains or uses…
~ 10,000 articles / week, ~5 million in their archives~ 21 years, 10,000 authorsHandful of top categories
Main reasons/uses: - Advertisement- Packing up stories and selling them- Readers finding stories & related stories- Journalists finding related stories
Boston Oct 2012
Expert content needs - Case Study: Media Group
Ideally update the taxonomy daily/weekly Must be dynamic & handle new cases/concepts Deep nesting is OK If multiple inheritance, need to disambiguate where a
particular article belongs to Be able to edit (be able to verify , in case of anomalies
based on automation & move nodes around)
Boston Oct 2012
Boston Oct 2012
Our studies
3. Existing popular systems (EuroHCIR)Matthew Pike, Max L. Wilson, Anna Divoli and Alyona MedelyanCUES: Cognitive Usability Evaluation System, EuroHCIR 2012, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Exploring UI features - Systems Tested: Yippy, Carrot, MeSH, ESD
Boston Oct 2012
Exploring UI features - Systems Tested: Yippy, Carrot, MeSH, ESD
Boston Oct 2012
Exploring UI features - Systems Tested: Yippy, Carrot, MeSH, ESD
Boston Oct 2012
Exploring UI features - Systems Tested: Yippy, Carrot, MeSH, ESD
Boston Oct 2012
Boston Oct 2012
Exploring UI features - Systems Tested: Yippy, Carrot, MeSH, ESD
A
A B C D E F
B
C
DE
F
A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F
Exploring UI features (Yippy, Carrot, MeSH, ESD): likes & dislikes
Boston Oct 2012
• Menu highlighting• Hierarchical folder layout• Expand hierarchy with “+” and “–”• Dual view (tree on left, results on right)• Ability to change visualisations of taxonomy• Search function is important• Familiar interface with folders
• Too simple or too much writing - would be nice to have color• Lots of scrolling • Dots in carrot circle – confusing• Double click on foam tree is unintuitive• Too broad taxonomies
Boston Oct 2012
Our studies
4. Mock ups of specific features (survey)
Taxonomy UI preferences (ongoing survey):
The (51) participants
Boston Oct 2012
60.0%26-4012.7%41-600%61 or older
27.3%25 or youngerAge:
52.7%College/University43.6%Graduate School
3.6%High School
Highest level of education:
47.3%Yes, but very little21.8%Yes
30.9%No
Do you have experience using taxonomies?
47.3%Very47.3%Second nature
5.5%Somewhat
How comfortable you are with computers?
bit.ly/pingar_taxonomies
Concept sorting
Boston Oct 2012
44.2%popularity (A)42.3%alphabetically (B)13.5%no preference
Displaying Counts
Boston Oct 2012
42.3%A51.9%B5.8%no preference
Using Labels
Boston Oct 2012
72.5%in frames (A)23.5%with labels (B)3.9%no preference
Plus/minus signs or arrows
Boston Oct 2012
47.1%A37.3%B15.7%no preference
Search Results Display
Boston Oct 2012
11.8%B70.6%C3.9%no preference
13.7%A
Search Functionality
Boston Oct 2012
74.5%partial64.7%hidden2.0%no preference
Where we stand
Our team works on automatic generated taxonomies but we realized the need for customization for specific needs
Boston Oct 2012
“Taxonomy is described sometimes as a science and sometimes as an art, but really it’s a battleground.”
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Boston Oct 2012
Taxonomy
A rt
S cience
T echnology A rt a X iomatic phil O sophy desig N l O gic hu M anities lingu I stics E thnonology S cience
Boston Oct 2012
Summary
• There is a place for manually, socially and automatically generated taxonomies (as well as hybrids).
• Text is “big” and in many fields dynamic.• “End-users” (not Information Management experts) need
access to “big text”.• Auto-generated taxonomies with manual editing facilities
is now possible & makes sense.• Domain specific background knowledge is vital for the
quality and detail required per solution.• User friendly systems are very important for end users.
Boston Oct 2012
Boston Oct 2012
Acknowledgements
Alyona Medelyan (Pingar)Max L. Wilson (Swansea/Nottingham)Matthew Pike (Swansea/Pingar)
Pingar Brains
All 65+ anonymous studies participants!pingar.com
Top Related