740 likes | 1.12k Views
Integrate the search seamlessly into the information architecture ... web site search. Use hierarchical faceted metadata dynamically, integrated with search ...
E N D
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 don’t 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 WebDB’99, http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~cluet/WEBDB/procwebdb99.html
Slide 12:Faceted Metadata
Slide 13: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 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:Yahoo’s use of facets
Slide 19:Yahoo’s use of facets
Slide 20:Yahoo’s use of facets
Slide 21:Yahoo’s 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 category’s 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 I’d use” “Visually simpler and more intuitive…Matrix 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: