Content Metadata and Search

Slide 1: Content Metadata and Search Remarks to the Dublin Core Workshop

Marti Hearst SIMS, UC Berkeley September 28, 2003

Slide 2:Resource Finding and the Web

Web search vs. collection search When a single page is all that�s needed, web search is fine Although validity is an issue Unsolved problem: How to make source-focused search more intuitive on the web? One idea (untested): task-based search

Slide 3:What about Content?

Dublin Core takes stances on the �content-neutral� aspects of metadata Q: What about content? The Metadata Marsh Getting agreement on metadata terms is difficult Even worse when talking about content! A: Domain-specific solutions Don�t worry about cross-domain consistency (a necessary drawback) Success: b-to-b protocols

Slide 4:Hypothesis (as yet untested):

Assuming we�ve focused on a domain, agreement on category assignment can converge much more quickly by: Focusing on the applications that will use the category system. Designing metadata to be used in interfaces that show items represented by many different categories in a highly flexible, but intuitive, manner.

Slide 5:One Example: Flamenco Project

Goal: create intuitive, inviting search interfaces that make use of hierarchical faceted metadata Challenge: How to provide flexibility and power without overwhelming? (Answer: careful interface design)

Slide 6:The Flamenco Project Team

Brycen Chun Ame Elliott Jennifer English Kevin Li Rashmi Sinha Kirsten Swearingen Ping Yee http://flamenco.berkeley.edu Research funded by: NSF CAREER Grant IIS-9984741 IBM Faculty Fellowship

Slide 7:Our Approach

Integrate the search seamlessly into the information architecture. Use proper HCI methodologies. Use faceted metadata: More flexible than canned hyperlinks Less complex than full search Help users see where to go next and return to what happened previously What�s new? Putting hierarchical facets into a useable interface.

Slide 8:Metadata: data about dataFacets: 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 9:Hierarchical Faceted Metadata Example: Biological Subject Headings

1. Anatomy [A] 2. Organisms [B] 3. Diseases [C] 4. Chemicals and Drugs [D] 5. Analytical, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment [E] 6. Psychiatry and Psychology [F] 7. Biological Sciences [G] 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. Anthropology, Education, Sociology and Social Phenomena [I] 10. Technology and Food and Beverages [J] 11. Humanities [K] 12. Information Science [L] 13. Persons [M] 14. Health Care [N] 15. Geographic Locations [Z]

Slide 10:Hierarchical Faced Metadata

1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] 6. [F] �� 7. [G] 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. [I] 10. [J] 11. [K] 12. [L] 13. [M]

Slide 11:Hierarchical Faceted Metadata

1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] �� Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] �. 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. [I] 10. [J] 11. [K] 12. [L] 13. [M]

Slide 12:Hierarchical Faceted Metadata

1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] �� Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] �. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics 9. [I] Astronomy 10. [J] Nature 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures 13. [M] �.

Slide 13:Hierarchical Faceted Metadata

1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] �� Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] �. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics Amplifiers 9. [I] Astronomy Electronics, Medical 10. [J] Nature Transducers 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures 13. [M] �.

Slide 14:Hierarchical Faceted Metadata

1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] �� Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] �. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics Amplifiers 9. [I] Astronomy Electronics, Medical 10. [J] Nature Transducers 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures Calibration 13. [M] �. Metric System Reference Standard

Slide 15:The Interface Design

Chess metaphor Opening Middle game End game

Slide 25:The Interface Design

Tightly Integrated Search Supports Expand as well as Refine Dynamically Generated Pages Paths can be taken in any order Links are idempotent Consistent Color Coding Consistent Backup and Bookmarking Standard HTML No javascript

Slide 26:What is Tricky About This?

It is easy to do it poorly Yahoo directory structure It is hard to be not overwhelming Most users prefer simplicity unless complexity really makes a difference It is hard to �make it flow� Can it feel like �browsing the shelves�? Yes, but we iterated the design 3 times

Slide 27: Usability Study

Participants & Collection 32 Art History Students ~35,000 images from SF Fine Arts Museum Study Design Within-subjects Each participant sees both interfaces Balanced in terms of order and tasks Participants assess each interface after use Afterwards they compare them directly Data recorded in behavior logs, server logs, paper-surveys; one or two experienced testers at each trial. Used 9 point Likert scales. Session took about 1.5 hours; pay was $15/hour

Slide 28:The Baseline System

Floogle Take the best of the existing keyword-based image search systems

Slide 33:Hypotheses

We attempted to design tasks to test the following hypotheses: Participants will experience greater search satisfaction, feel greater confidence in the results, produce higher recall, and encounter fewer dead ends using FC over Baseline FC will perceived to be more useful and flexible than Baseline Participants will feel more familiar with the contents of the collection after using FC Participants will use FC to create multi-faceted queries

Slide 34:Four Types of Tasks

Unstructured (3): Search for images of interest Structured Task (11-14): Gather materials for an art history essay on a given topic, e.g. Find all woodcuts created in the US Choose the decade with the most Select one of the artists in this periods and show all of their woodcuts Choose a subject depicted in these works and find another artist who treated the same subject in a different way. Structured Task (10): compare related images Find images by artists from 2 different countries that depict conflict between groups. Unstructured (5): search for images of interest

Slide 35:Other Points

Participants were NOT walked through the interfaces. The wording of Task 2 reflected the metadata; not the case for Task 3 Within tasks, queries were not different in difficulty (t�s<1.7, p >0.05 according to post-task questions) Flamenco is and order of magnitude slower than Floogle on average. In task 2 users were allowed 3 more minutes in FC than in Baseline. Time spent in tasks 2 and 3 were significantly longer in FC (about 2 min more).

Slide 36:Post-Interface Assessments

All significant at p<.05 except simple and overwhelming

Slide 37:Perceived Uses of Interfaces

Baseline FC

Slide 38:Post-Test Comparison

FC Baseline Find images of roses Find all works from a given period Find pictures by 2 artists in same media Which Interface Preferable For:

Slide 39:Post-Test Comparison

FC Baseline Overall Assessment: More useful for your tasks Easiest to use Most flexible More likely to result in dead ends Helped you learn more Overall preference Find images of roses Find all works from a given period Find pictures by 2 artists in same media Which Interface Preferable For:

Slide 40:Study Results Summary

Strongly positive results for the faceted metadata interface. Moderate use of multiple facets. Strong preference over the current state of the art. Chair of Architecture Dept: �It felt like I was browsing the shelves!� This kind of enthusiasm is not seen in similarity-based image search interfaces. Hypotheses are supported.

Slide 41:Study Summary

Usability studies done on 3 collections: Recipes: 13,000 items Architecture Images: 40,000 items Fine Arts Images: 35,000 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 42: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 43:Metadata Availability

Many collections already have rich metadata associated with them. Automated methods are improving. Have applied this to: Tobacco documents archive MEDLINE

Slide 44:Back to the Hypothesis

This kind of tool may be helpful for resolving metadata creation wars. Multiple paths to get to the same item Different views on different subsets of items No need to force everything into one hierarchy What do you think?