320 likes | 438 Views
Collection Understanding. Michelle Chang, John J. Leggett, Richard Furuta, Andruid Kerne Texas A&M University. J. Patrick Williams, Samuel A. Burns, Randolph G. Bias University of Texas at Austin. Introduction. Large collection of digital artifacts Actual contents difficult to perceive
E N D
Collection Understanding Michelle Chang, John J. Leggett, Richard Furuta, Andruid Kerne Texas A&M University J. Patrick Williams, Samuel A. Burns, Randolph G. Bias University of Texas at Austin
Introduction • Large collection of digital artifacts • Actual contents difficult to perceive • Image retrieval methods are insufficient
Collection Understanding • Understand the essence of the collection by focusing on the artifacts • Comprehensive view • Not locating specific artifacts
Collection Understanding (CU) vs. Information Retrieval (IR) • Find specific artifacts • Prior knowledge of metadata • Define queries
Related Work • Collages • Photo Browsers • Image Browsers • Ambient Displays
Collage • combinFormation • Collaborage • Notification Collage • Aesthetic Information Collages • Video Collage
Photo Browsers • Calendar Browser • Hierarchical Browser • FotoFile • PhotoFinder • PhotoMesa
Image Browsers • Zoomable Image Browser • Strip-Browser • Flamenco Image Browser
Ambient Displays • Dangling String • Tangible Bits • Informative Art
Problems with Querying by Metadata • Currently the most used method • Two levels: collection, artifact • Creator/maintainer/collector defines metadata • Time-consuming • Vague
Problems with Browsing • Pre-defined and fixed structure • Requires large amount of navigation (pointing and clicking) • Narrows a collection
Problems with Scrolling • Limited screen space • Entire result set not visible • Requires large amount of pointing and clicking
Visualization • Streaming Collage • Ambient Slideshow • Variably Gridded Thumbnails
Streaming Collage • Collage is “an assembly of diverse fragments” • Streaming – constructed dynamically in time
Metadata Filtering • Modifying metadata fields and values • Expand result set • Constrain result set
Connecting Streaming Collage with Metadata Filtering • Continuous Process of: Interactively filtering metadata Generating dynamic collage • Temporal and Spatial
Ambient Slideshow • Peripheral Display • Chance encounters • Slowly reveals artifacts in the collection
Variably Gridded Thumbnails • Relevance measure • Full-text search • Grid of thumbnails • Grid element’s background color varies
Evaluation • Independent evaluation • Usability study gauged intuitiveness of interface • 15 graduate students: UT at Austin
No Directed Tasks • Users “queried the database” • Didn’t right-click on any images • Didn’t use metadata filtering
Directed Tasks • Successfully created collages • Right-clicked on images • Used metadata filtering
Conclusions from study • Improvements for intuitive interface • Initial engagement • Metadata Filtering form & controls • Help menu • Hint for no results
Summary • Collection understanding shifts the traditional focus of image retrieval • Inspire users to derive their own relationships by focusing on artifacts • Collection insight increases
Acknowledgments • Dr. Enrique Mallen, The On-Line Picasso Project • The Humanities Informatics Initiative, Telecommunications and Informatics Task Force, Texas A&M University.
http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~mchang/thesis.html mchang@csdl.tamu.edu