1 / 48

Gary Marchionini, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ils.unc/~march

Practice and Theory in Digital Libraries: The Case of Open Video Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA05) Dubrovnik, Croatia. Gary Marchionini, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill www.ils.unc.edu/~march march@ils.unc.edu May 30, 2005. Outline. Digital Libraries as phenomena

burt
Download Presentation

Gary Marchionini, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ils.unc/~march

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practice and Theory in Digital Libraries: The Case of Open VideoLibraries in the Digital Age (LIDA05)Dubrovnik, Croatia Gary Marchionini, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill www.ils.unc.edu/~march march@ils.unc.edu May 30, 2005

  2. Outline • Digital Libraries as phenomena • Multimedia and video challenge our text biases • Open Video concepts and system Moebius • User studies • Conclusion

  3. Pragmatics • Useful theory and practice are a Moebius strip • DL practice in informed by multiple theories related to: • Information structure • Human behavior • System design • Social-political-economic constraints and organizational behavior • History and epistemology • “We want principles, not only developed—the work of the closet—but applied, which is the work of life.” Horace Mann, Thoughts, 1867

  4. Theories of What and Why • Digital extensions of physical libraries • Augmentations of intellect • Collaborative spaces: sharium • Cultural institutions • World Brain • Economic models • Complex information systems

  5. Theories of How • Reuse and open source information • Levels of abstraction • Information retrieval • Information interaction • Iterative design and evaluation • Resource management

  6. Digital Library Design Space1999: What Has Changed in 2005? Adapted from Marchionini & Fox, IP&M, 1999

  7. Provocation: Text no longer rules: • The Net generation depends much less of reading (they are entering universities as students and soon, as professors; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005 Educause book). In the US: • Children age 6 or younger: average of 2 hrs/day using screen media, 1.6 hrs/day playing outside, 39 min. reading • 13-17 yr olds: average 3.1 hrs/day watching TV and 3.5 hrs/day with digital media. They multitask • >2M million US children (ages 6–17) have their own Web site. Girls are more likely to have a Web site than boys (12.2 percent versus 8.6 percent). • Ability to use nontext expression—audio, video, graphics—appears stronger in each successive cohort. • Multimedia and Multitasking the trend of 21st century • Information specialists MUST get over our text bias

  8. Open Video DL Case • Open • Public good • Reusable • Files not streams • Chunking • Agile views user interface • Alternative representations (views) • Agile control mechanisms

  9. Open Video Vision/Contributions • An open repository of video files that can be re-used in a variety of ways by the education and research communities • Encourages contributions • A testbed for interactive interfaces • An easy to use DL based upon the agile views interface design framework • Multiple, cascading, easy to control views (pre, over, re, shared, peripheral) • Views based upon empirically validated surrogates • An environment for building theory of human information interaction • A set of methods and metrics that reveal how people understand digital video through surrogates

  10. Background & Status • Begun 1995 with colleagues at UMD & BCPS • Funding: NSF, NASA, NSF/LoC • Collaborators/Contributors: I2-DSI, ibiblio, CMU, UMD, NIST, Prelinger and Internet Archives, NASA, ACM • ~2600 video segments • ~2000 different titles • ~15000 unique visitors per month • MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, QT • OAI provider • Ongoing user studies • New Preservation initiative

  11. Agile Views Interface Research • Provide a variety of access representations (e.g., indexes) and control mechanisms • Usual search and browse capabilities • Leverage both visual and linguistic cues • Create and test surrogates for overview preview, shared and history views

  12. User Study Framework

  13. The Surrogates • Storyboard with text keywords (20-36 per board@ 500 ms) • Storyboard with audio keywords • Slide show with text keywords (250ms repeated once) • Slide show with audio keywords • Fast forward (~ 4X) • Fast forwards 32X, 64X, 128X, 256X • Poster frames • Real time clips • Text titles

  14. Surrogate Examples

  15. Metrics

  16. User Studies • Study 1: Qualitative Comparison of Surrogates (ECDL 02) • Study 2: Fast Forwards (JCDL 03) • Study 3: Narrativity (CHI 02; ASIST 03 paper) • Study 4: Shared views and History Views (Geisler dissertation) • Study 4: Poster frames and text (eye tracking, CIVR 03) • Study 5: TREC evaluations (03 and 04) • Study 6: cognitive load and ISEE (Mu diss.) • Study 7: relevance judgments for video (Yang diss.) • Study 8: Surrogate integration study (in analysis) • Others: several specific master’s papers (Hughes, Gruss

  17. Study 1: Compare Surrogates • What are the strengths and weaknesses of different surrogates from the users’ perspective? • Are any of the surrogates better than the others in supporting user performance?

  18. The Surrogates • Storyboard with text keywords (20-36 per board@ 500 ms) • Storyboard with audio keywords • Slide show with text keywords (250ms repeated once) • Slide show with audio keywords • Fast forward (~ 4X)

  19. Method • 7 video segments (2-10 min), 5 surrogates created for each • 10 subjects with high video and computer experience • Three phases (all multi-camera videotaped) • View full video then use 3 surrogates, repeat • Participant observation and debriefing • Do NOT view full video, use 3 surrogates, repeat • Participant observation and debriefing • Complete 3 assigned tasks with surrogates of choice • Think aloud and debriefing • http://www.open-video.org/experiments/chi-2002/methods/study1.mov

  20. Tasks • Gist determination—free text • Gist determination—multiple choice • Object recognition—textual • Object recognition—graphical • Action recognition (2-3 second clips) • Visual gist (predict which frames belong) • http://www.open-video.org/experiments/chi-2002/surrogates/index.html

  21. Preferences • In debriefing after each phase, subjects asked about preferences. • Some preferences changed over the phases • 2 subjects preferred ff • 4 subjects said ff if audio keywords added • 1 storyboard with audio keywords • 2 slide show with audio keywords •  drop ss with text keywords, develop ff

  22. Performance • No SRD on gist (both free text and multiple choice) • SRD on action recognition favoring ff • ‘Near’ SRD on text object recognition favoring SB/w audio keywords • 8:1 to 29:1 compaction rates suitable for tasks • Psychometric and face validity support for the tasks (means and variances; relevant to real tasks) • SRD in gist and visual gist for one video • Homogeneity of frames diminishes surrogate value • Keywords help when visual variability decreases

  23. Qualitative Results • Subjects suggested different surrogates for different tasks (e.g., ff for judging kid safe, sb for identifying images, ff for video styles) • Three senses of gist • Topic (T) • Narrativity (N) • T+N+visual style • Individual preferences and experiences influence surrogate effectiveness

  24. Study 2: Fast Forward • How fast can we make fast forwards? • 4 ff conditions (32X, 64X, 128X, 256X) • Four video segments for each condition • 45 subjects (1/2 UG, 1/2 grad, 2/3 female) • 6 tasks (full text gist, multiple choice gist, word object recognition, graphical object recognition, action recognition, visual gist) • Counterbalance speed and videos • Web-driven experimental condition, 3-camera video tapes, single subject at a time in usability laboratory

  25. Example Image Recognition Stimulus

  26. Results • SRD on 4 of 6 tasks as speed increases, however, reasonable performance at even the highest rate • Video content/genre interacts with performance • Preference does not parallel performance (people can perform well under extreme conditions but do not like/enjoy) • No user characteristic differences (age, sex) • Give users control but select appropriate defaults • Caveat: controlled, independent focus on FF, likely a lower bound on performance

  27. Speed Effects on Performance

  28. Narrativity Study • CHI walk up kiosk, 20 people used • 20 one-minute clips ( half b&w, no audio) selected on 2 criteria: contain characters, have cause/effect relations between scenes (5 in each category) • SRD on chars, cause, and interaction

  29. Shared Views and History Views Studies • Evaluate AV Design Framework by instantiating and evaluating a design • Shared (based on recommendations) and History Views (based on logs) • Phase 1: compare OV to Views interface (28 participants). OV>accuracy; NSRD on time, but learning effect; AV>navigation/efficiency; AV>satisfaction • Phase 2: qualitative analysis of shared and history views

  30. Poster Frame Study • Research Questions: • Given both textual and visual metadata; which surrogate will be utilized,which surrogate will be preferred? • Does the placement of the surrogates affect how they are used? • Does the assigned task affect how surrogates are used? • Does personal preference play a role in how surrogates are used?

  31. Study Methods / Procedures • 12 undergraduate students (paid volunteers) • Pre-Study questionnaire • Demographics • Visual vs. Verbal learning style (VVQ) • 10 search problems • Counter-balanced • Design 1 and 2 • 1 : text on left / visuals on right • 2 : visuals on left / text on right • Eyetracking • Post-study questionnaire • Follow up questions

  32. Results • All participants over all tasks: • Mean time looking at text = 29.7 sec. • Mean time looking at pics = 6.8 sec. • 75% of fixations over text • 18% of fixations over pics • First fixations over text = 65 • First fixations over pics = 54 • Text requires and gets more user attention

  33. Results cont’d • Design 1 vs. Design 2 • When text was placed on the left, mean time per fixation was slightly higher • VVQ • Balanced group spent more time looking at text • Tasks • Varied by task: • Time spent looking at text • Time spent per fixation over text • Frequency of fixations over text

  34. Screen Shots

  35. Screen Shots

  36. Screen Shots

  37. Tasks • Please find a video that discusses the destruction earthquakes can do to buildings. These search results are from a search on the word “Earthquake”. • Please find a video that discusses nurses and their contributions to the United States Army. These search results are from a search on the word “Work”. • Please choose a video from the following list that you think would be entertaining for you and your friends to watch.

  38. Discussion • In this restricted situation (i.e. pre-formulated results page) participants used text as the main anchor point • ? Because text is a better surrogate? • ? Because text contains more information? • ? Because text is more familiar to people • ? Because tasks directed users to text?

  39. Discussion cont’d • Layout seemed to have little effect on how surrogates were used. • Difference of .03 of a second • Participants didn’t report a significant preference for layout • Some liked design 1 and some liked design 2 • VVQ • Hypothesis that visual learners would use visual surrogates and verbal learners would use verbal surrogates was not supported

  40. Discussion cont’d • Tasks • Some tasks took more time to complete • Regardless of: • Counterbalancing order • Participant • Layout design

  41. Text or Pictures? • Text was reported as: • Being the search anchor • Containing significant topical information • Taking longer to read than pictures • Visuals were reported as: • Being globally liked • Being used to quickly narrow down choices • Taking less time to decode than text • All participants said the results page would be weaker without them • Often lacking in reference points

  42. Conclusion • Visual metadata was used to make (confirm???) relevance judgments • Combination of visual & verbal stronger than one or the other • Generalize with caution: • Small number of study participants • Specific set of search results pages • Ten specific search tasks.

  43. The Integration Study • Compare old OV to redesign? Compare to Internet archive? • How do multiple surrogates and agile control mechanisms affect understanding of video? • Accuracy? Time? Satisfaction? Cognitive load? Navigational overhead? • Data analysis underway

  44. Relevance Study (Yang) • 3 task groups (illustration [10 profs], collection building [8 video librarians], video production [8 producers/editors]) • In-depth interviews • Text, audiovisual, implicit categories of 39 different criteria • Topicality most often mentioned, but far less than text studies • Production groups less varied, more audiovisual criteria

  45. Theory-Practice Lessons from OV • User-centered design and user testing pays off, i.e. research informs practice • Production system operation raises new kinds of research questions • Sustainability models • Curatorial models • Preservation challenges • Upgrade paths for universal access

  46. DL Research Directions • Incorporating people into DLs (patrons, librarians) • Leveraging contributions and implications for curatorship • Preservation strategies; how much context? • Hybrid physical-digital library operations

  47. Observations • A moebius strip is infinite: the interplay between theory and practice goes on • Need for collaboration between working libraries and researchers

  48. Selected Open Video Readings • Yang, M. & Marchionini, G. (2005). “Deciphering visual gist and its implications for video retrieval and interface design.” Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). Portland, OR. Apr. 2-7, 2005. • Yang, M. & Marchionini, G. (2004). “Exploring Users' Video Relevance Criteria -- A Pilot Study.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, pp. 229-238. Nov. 12-17, 2004. Providence, RI. • Yang, M., Wildemuth, B., & Marchionini, G. (2004). “The relative effectiveness of concept-based versus content-based video retrieval.” Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia conference, pp. 368-371. • Mu, X., & Marchionini, G. (2003). “ Enriched video semantic metadata: authorization, integration, and presentation.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 40, 316-322. • Wilkens, T., Hughes, A., Wildemuth, B. M., & Marchionini, G. (2003). “ The role of narrative in understanding digital video: an exploratory analysis.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 40, 323-329. • Hughes, A., Wilkens, T., Wildemuth, B., Marchionini, G. (2003). “Text or Pictures? An Eyetracking Study of How People View Digital Video Surrogates.” Proceedings of CIVR 2003, pp. 271-280. • Wildemuth, B. M., Marchionini, G., Yang, M., Geisler, G., Wilkens, T., Hughes, A., and Gruss, R. (2003). “How Fast Is Too Fast? Evaluating Fast Forward Surrogates for Digital Video.” Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2003), pp. 221-230. (Vannevar Bush Award Winner for Best Paper at JCDL 2003) • Mu, X., Marchionini, G., & Pattee, A. (2003). “ The Interactive Shared Educational Environment: User interface, system architecture and field study.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 40, 291-300. • Mu, X., Marchionini, G. (2003) “Statistical Visual Features Indexes in Video Retrieval.” Proceedings of SIGIR 2003, pp. 395-396. • Marchionini, Gary (2003). “Video and Learning Redux: New Capabilities for Practical Use.” Educational Technology. • Marchionini, Gary and Geisler, Gary. (2002). “The Open Video Digital Library.” D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 8, Number 12, December. • Barbara M. Wildemuth, Gary Marchionini, Todd Wilkens, Meng Yang, Gary Geisler, Beth Fowler, Anthony Hughes, and Xiangming Mu (2002). “Alternative Surrogates for Video Objects in a Digital Library: Users� Perspectives on Their Relative Usability.” Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Digital Libraries, September 16 - 18, 2002, Rome, Italy. • Geisler, G., Marchionini, G., Wildemuth, B. M., Hughes, A., Yang, M., Wilkens, T., and Spinks, R. (2002). “Video Browsing Interfaces for the Open Video Project.” Proceedings of CHI 2002, Extended Abstracts. • Nelson, Michael L., Marchionini, Gary, Geisler, Gary, and Yang, Meng (2001). "A Bucket Architecture for the Open Video Project [short paper]." JCDL ’01, ACM - IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (June 24-28, 2001, Roanoke, Virginia). • Geisler, Gary, and Gary Marchionini (2000). "The Open Video Project: A Research-Oriented Digital Video Repository [short paper]." In Digital Libraries '00: The Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries (June 2-7 2000, San Antonio, TX). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 258-259. • Slaughter, L., Marchionini, G. and Geisler, G. (2000). "Open Video: A Framework for a Test Collection." Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 23(3). San Diego: Academic Press.

More Related