To complete my MS in Information Architecture and Knowledge Management at Kent State I did some research on folksonomies and how the can support information retrieval. I compared social bookmarking systems with search engines and directories. I’m hoping to see the results published in an academic journal. In the mean time, you can see a pre-publication copy of my results:
Posts Tagged ‘Academic Papers’code-of-ethics First-Amendment folksonomies free-speech information-architecture internet journalism learnability media recommendation site-navigation social-bookmarking spatial maps Taxonomies Usability video-games Writing
You and your third dimension… it’s cute. Beneath the surface of Aqua Teen Hunger Force’s MooninitesFriday, December 10th, 2004
Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim line up of shows has become a real force in pop culture. It’s ratings now demolish late night mainstays like The Tonight Show and Late Show With David Letterman among 18- to 24-year olds (by 24 and 56 percent, respectively)1. Aqua Teen Hunger Force, created by Matt Maiellaro and Dave Willis, is an illustrative example of the kind of programming drawing viewers from more traditional fare to Cartoon Network. In the show, animated anthropomorphic fast food items Frylock, Master Shake and Meatwad deal with an equally colorful array of enemies, including the alien Mooninites, Inignot and Err. The three protagonists live in a house in New Jersey, next door to Carl, their human and not particularly friendly neighbor.
The show has reoccurring characters but little in the way of overarching themes, continuity, or logic. It commonly employs foul language (although the worst of it is beeped), explosions, and gross-out humor. It would be easy to dismiss it as yet another artifact of the steady decline of western civilization – although that attitude is probably premature. People have been bemoaning the decline of civilization at least since Socrates was put to death for corrupting the youth.2 There is more to this show than a surface reading would betray, and the characters of the Mooninites provide a good example of why.
The Mooninites are very popular among the show’s fans. Proof can be found in online discussion forums – in one, they are voted funniest villains by four out of nine posters.3 The characters were obviously inspired by early arcade and Atari games. Their spaceship, for example, would fit in perfectly in Space Invaders, and the sounds made when they walk, jump, or fire their lasers seem to come directly from games like Pac Man. Their bodies are squared and pixelated, as if they were rendered with limited processing power. The theme of alien enemies descending randomly from space is seen in many classic games, from Space Invaders to Galaga.
A Taxonomy Primer, Warner, Amy J. (2002)
Ten Taxonomy Myths, Montague Institute (2002)
The Taxonomy Primer was pretty straightforward, but the Myths were more interesting. I especially liked myths 1 and 2, because I think when most people think taxonomy they think of a single, giant, all-encompassing tree that everything fits into exactly. It can be very useful to have a number of taxonomies for the same information, and there are some great examples on the web, where a site my be organized by product type but then also by region or customer group, allowing browsing from each perspective.
One image I found particularly enlightening was in the Svenonius article, where taxonomies were described as â€œelaborate Victorian edificesâ€ and contrasted with â€œjerrybuilt systems [that] could meet the needs of most users most of the time.â€ This is an excellent description of where library people and web people seem to have a disconnect. Coming at thing more from the web side myself, I often think of grand schemes to classify everything and put everything into neatly labeled boxesâ€”like Dewey or the Library of Congress Classification Schemesâ€”as too big, too elaborate, and too old. I this is why many of the people who first started organizing information on web sites and the like don’t look to library science for inspiration, despite the wealth that is there. Most of the web people have only worked with systems that are small enough to be informal, personal enough to be ideosyncratic, or targeted enough to simply model how current users talk about the information already. In other words, jerrybuilt.
Later in the chapter, though, the writer states that organizing information is different from organizing anything else, and is in particular not to be done with â€œroutine application of the database modeling techniquesâ€ used in business. While I agree that organizing information would be substantially different from organizing employees, the rationale given (something to do with works and differences in editions of them) lends itself really well to more-or-less common relational database structures. I think there are important issues, but too often the issues I see brought up are superficial.
Notes on “Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files”Thursday, January 22nd, 2004
(G Hodge – 2000)
One thing I liked was this definition:
â€œA KOS serves as a bridge between the user’s information need and the material in the collection. With it, the user should be able to identify an object of interest without prior knowledge of its existence.â€
I like the notion that a KOS helps users find resources they’re not even aware of. I think that’s an important goal.
An impression I get from a lot of LIS people is a mild disdain for the web. Obviously the web is in many ways unstructured and can be difficult to use in ways that library systems are not. At one point the article states that â€œSomeone recently compared the Web with a large room filled with books that were scattered all over the floor.â€
The description above is an example of the kind of lame metaphors this disdain fosters. If the web is a large room filled with books, it is the largest room that has ever existed; the vast majority of books are available virtually for free; and although they are scattered all over the floor, thousands of people will freely provide you with maps to find books on certain subjects, and everyone is provided with magical binoculars that let them see deep inside books and find a single phrase.
I’m not saying that bringing better standards to the web any devising better KOSs to organize web resources is bad, just that it seems like many LIS people take the existence of the web for granted.
One thing mentioned throughout this article is the high cost of indexing and cataloging or merging different cataloging schemes together. I think the costs may be exaggerated in some ways. For example, if you wish to catalog web resources for educators and for medical professionals, two groups that probably have different terminology for similar concepts, you don’t need to pay thousands of grad students to index everything under one, then the other scheme. Instead develop a mapping system that translates between the two types of terminology. The mapping system would be a big project and have to be very robust, but once it’s built it can run behind the scenes when anyone does any kind of searching. The article mentions cases where this has been done (with MESH terms, for example) but insists that it is a high-cost venture.
Similarly, what’s wrong with using the users of the indexing system as the workforce? Logs of search terms and phrases and how they are used together can be analyzed. Users can be tracked to see which titles or abstracts they click on when searching for certain terms, how long they spend at that resources, etc. Users can even be asked to rate resources and search results. If you are in the market for a hard drive or digital camera, I recommend you go to bizrate.com, pricegrabber.com, or any of a dozen services that allow users to rate both products and merchants, making it easy to find a good LCD monitor at a reputable dealer despite the massive anonymity of the Internet and the ease of creating fly-by-night stores or selling junk merchandise online. Something similar could be done to winnow out junk information and organize information resources.
Ignorance, paralysis or expense: The problem of software and business method patents for information architects and web designersSunday, December 14th, 2003
[Note: this is a paper prepared for a graduate course in the IAKM program at Kent State University.]
What is the first step an information architect or web designer makes when designing a web site? Designers are often worried about principles such as giving users control, being consistent, providing feedback, or not relying on users’ memory (Dumas). Or, they are mentally checking off any one of a thousand â€œtop ten mistakesâ€ lists available in books and on the web. They may even start by discussing requirements with clients or conducting usability tests. But chances are, they aren’t at the US Patent Office web site. The last thing most information architects and web designers think about before creating a web site is doing a patent search. And this is becoming a big problem.
The introduction and explosion of software and business method patents relating to website design features presents a major problem to those who design sites, and designers and companies find themselves in three positions: ignorant of the issue, caught up in the â€œdefensiveâ€ patent race themselves, or perhaps ultimately paralyzed and unable to continue work.