JasonMorrison.net

I’ve been kicking around the idea of redesigning my homepage and blog, though I’m not sure I really have the free time to do it. To start, I thought I would to put down a few thoughts about applying usability principles when designing blogs.

When you starting thinking about usability it’s temping to jump right into lists of principles and rules of thumb. It’s a little silly applying Fitt’s Law when you haven’t even established what you want your site to accomplish in the first place. So what, generally, do you want your blog to do?

Personal Goals

• Share thoughts and work with others
• Collect a body of work to represent myself (like a portfolio)
• Collect information for later discovery (by myself and others)
• Provide an outlet to continue practice writing
• Allow others to communicate with me and comment

If you’re creating or redesigning a blog for a company, the goal set may be very different. Below are some examples that don’t actually apply in my case.

Business goals

• Communicate with customers
• Build long term relationships with customers
• Produce quality content to drive search traffic
• Generate revenue through advertising
• Etc.

Many projects don’t even get this far before the graphic designers and web developers are already making mock-ups, but we still have one more important step to do. We know why you’re building a blog, but why are users coming to it?

(more…)

First, a disclaimer: the title of this post is obviously exaggerated. Proof is an awfully big word to throw around, and although I employed pretty good experiment design practices and statistical checks, I can’t really prove that Reddit should do this or that. But I can show that what they are doing now is not working, at least when it comes to search.

So, I got an email the other day letting me know that my article, Tagging and Searching: Search Retrieval Effectiveness of Folkonsomies on the World Wide Web, is being published in the July 2008 issue of Information Processing and Management (here’s the official DOI link to the article). In the study I compared search performance between traditional search engines (like Google), subject directories (like Open Directory), and social bookmarking systems (like Reddit) and their folksonomies.

What’s a folksonomy? The word is a play on the term taxonomy – a taxonomy is a system of organizing and categorizing things, like the Dewey Decimal System. Taxonomies usually follow very strict rules and are controlled by experts. A folksonomy is a system of organization built by large numbers of regular users, who add things to the collection, evaluate them, and usually tag them with keywords.

In my study, the social bookmarking systems with tagging systems did surprisingly well – Del.icio.us was more precise than Open Directory, and at a cut off of 20 results it’s precision was fairly close to that of the search engines.

Reddit, however, did not fare so well. It consistently had the lowest precision, meaning that searches returned very few relevant results. There could be many reasons for this, but the biggest difference between Reddit and the others is the lack of tags.

Now, it’s possible that the folks at Reddit have no interest in search, or information retrieval in general. I think Reddit is very effective at bringing out new and interesting links on a daily basis and encouraging commentary (just my opinion, no stats to back that up). But I think it’s a big missed opportunity not to add tagging and see where it leads.

(One last disclaimer: this post is my personal opinion as someone who enjoys using Reddit and does not reflect on my employer. This post refers to research done independently as a grad student.)

  The issue has been our for a little while now, but I thought I would note that I have an article about The use of tagging systems in this month’s issue of the ASIST Bulletin. Take a look at Why Are They Tagging, and Why Do We Want
Them To?

Almost everyone has a tagging system the web is facing serious weather with tag clouds on every site. I think it’s interesting to explore the uses of folksonomies and why users bother tagging things in the first place. Here’s an excerpt:

When thinking about adding tagging to a site, the first question should be: What do we want to get out of this? Does the site need something to improve search results or a new navigational facet to better connect related pages? Is the goal to classify lots of multimedia objects with minimal cost or to get users to interact with the site a little more?

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:

Tagging and searching [pdf, 989K]

Usability Testing

Usability tests can be seen to fall into two general categories, based on their aim: tests which aim to find usability problems with a specific site, and tests which aim to prove or disprove a hypothesis. This test would fall into the former category. A search of the literature will reveal that tests looking to uncover specific usability problems often use a very small number of participants, coming from Nielsen’s (2000) conclusion that five users is enough to find 85 percent of all usability problems. Nielsen derived this formula from earlier work (Nielsen and Landauer, 1993). Although there is much disagreement (Spool and Schroeder, 2001), this rule of thumb has the advantage of fitting the time and money budget of many projects.

Use of Eye-Tracking Data

In terms of raw data, eye tracking produces an embarrassment of riches. A text export of one test of Mealographer yielded roughly 25 megabytes of data. There are a number of different ways eye tracking data can be interpreted, and the measures can be grouped into measures of search and measures of processing or concentration (Goldberg and Kotval, 1999):

Measures of search:

• Scan path length and duration
• Convex hull area, for example the size of a circle enclosing the scan path
• Spatial density of the scan path.
• Transition matrix, or the number of movements between two areas of interest
• Number of saccades, or sizable eye movements between fixations
• Saccadic amplitude

Measures of processing:

• Number of Fixations
• Fixation duration
• Fixation/saccade ratio

In general, longer, less direct scan paths indicate poor representation (such as bad label text) and confusing layout, and a higher number of fixations and longer fixation duration may indicate that users are having a hard time extracting the information they need (Renshaw, Finlay, Tyfa, and Ward, 2004). Usability studies employing eye tracking data may employ measures that are context-independent such as fixations, fixation durations, total dwell times, and saccadic amplitudes as well as screen position-dependent measures such as dwell time within areas of interest (Goldberg, Stimson, Lewenstein, Scott, and Wichansky, 2002).

Because of the time frame of this investigation, the nature of the study tasks, and the researcher’s inexperience with eye tracking hardware and software, eye tracking data was compiled into “heat maps” based on the number and distribution of fixations. These heat maps are interpreted as a qualitative measure.

(more…)

Abstract

Diet can have a great effect on health, but few people keep track of what they eat each day, let alone how much fat, protein, Calcium, or other nutrients. Although most food items have nutrition information printed on the packaging, few people can tell you whether or not the 10 grams of fat in their candy bar is acceptable, or whether it has put them over the edge.

In this project the author assumes that a big part of the reason people do not keep track of their diet is that there is no easy way to do so. The final product of this project is Mealographer, a simple interface that allows users to enter in the foods and meals they eat each day, set simple nutrition goals, and see reports of their progress. Mealographer was created by implementing a large number of improvements to the product of a previous investigation, WhatYouEat. A usability test was conducted to evaluate Mealographer and find specific usability problems.

Previous Work – The WhatYouEat Project

Mealographer inherits much of its functionality from a previous project, titled WhatYouEat, part of an individual investigation from fall, 2005. The original project had two goals: to create an application that allows users to track their dietary intake, and to make the application as easy to use as possible.

WhatYouEat allowed users to record their meals, set simple goals for different nutrients, and

track their diet through simple reports. Supporting functionality included a simple user sign up and login system, and systems allowing users to indicate favorite foods and “usuals” – foods eaten on a regular basis.

WhatYouEat was demonstrated informally to several groups and an informal usability test was run with four participants. Although this style of evaluation was not rigorous, users were asked to use the site and comment on any confusion or difficulties. Many users also commented on design and additional functionality. Usability issues included difficulty in:

Targeting

• Even with a large screen size and large font, it was hard for one subject to click on fields before entering text.
• Field labels were used to enlarge the clickable area. It may be possible to have the cursor will default to the first field.

Layout

• Two users were a little confused about the two-column layout of input forms.
• A thin line was added to help make the grid more clear.

Forms

• Three users forgot to set the meal date at least once. The submit button was easy to miss. One user hit enter to submit the search form and didn’t expect the entire meal to be submitted. There were problems using the back button.
• The submit button was made more visible
• The forms were be broken up so that the submit button for a particular field only submits that field.
• Required fields could be made more clear with a symbol and some JavaScript.

Labeling

• Some labels were unclear or hard to read. In particular, dates presented in yyyy-mm-dd format and names of nutrients.
• The labels should be changed to reflect user expectations.

Measurements

• Many users had a hard time determining how much they had eaten, or understanding how much food each measurement amount actually represented. Few of them knew what an ounce or gram of a given food looked like, or how much of non-fluid items made up a cup.
• Some graphic representation of food amounts should be available in the system, as well as a conversion application. See Future Plans for more information on the approach to this problem.

Missing items

• Users more than once looked for food items that did not appear to be in the database at all. This included brand-name items or items from specific restaurants. This is a limitation for the USDA database.
• There is no simple or quick solution to this problem. See Future Plans for more information on the approach to this problem.

(more…)

Note: This was originally created for an information architecture class – the project was to redesign the Kent State School of Library Science web site. You can also see a usability study of the site.

Executive Summary

The current Kent State University School of Library Science (SLIS) does not meet the needs of the department. This project outlines a plan and strategy for designing a new site. The new site will better communicate the department’s image and core attributes to the outside world and better meet the needs of users. This report covers the entire process, from research and project goals, through the development of a new design and how to measure success. Major recommendations include the use of a simple content management system (CMS), a new navigation structure and graphic design, and a few new content elements such as news, video, and podcasts.

Introduction

This report will cover the overall strategy for the redesign of the Kent State University SLIS web site, including the site’s audiences, the vision for the site, and analysis of the content and maintenance. Finally, recommendation are made for the content, information architecture, and design of the new site. The ultimate goal of this project is to create a coherent analysis and plan for the SLIS department to execute. The result will be a site that better projects the image of the department, better serves the users, and, if possible, makes the staff’s job a little bit easier.

Site content has been updated, but the organization and design of the site has been the same since 2000. The web has changed a great deal in the last 5 years, and the Kent SLIS site look and feel is not exactly cutting edge. The faculty and staff have voiced a desire to update the site, and there is anecdotal evidence that at least some students find the site lacking. Any new design must better address the needs of the site’s audiences and should better project the image of the department to the outside world. Also, the process used to update the current site is slow and unwieldy. The new site will solve three main problems: poor ease of use, an image that does not fit the department, and difficulty updating the site and communicating with users.

The process followed in creating this report has included requirements-gathering meetings with SLIS faculty and staff, content analysis of the current site, analysis of server logs, brainstorming sessions with Information Architecture Knowledge Management (IAKM) students, analysis of similar sites, academic usability research, the creation of persona, card sorting exercises, wireframing, prototyping and other techniques. The report will recommend additional steps such as formal usability testing be taken as well.

(more…)

Note: this was a project for a graduate course in Knowledge Organization Systems

Metadata schema for radiological terrorism research (MSRTR)

Terrorism research is a complex field dealing with a number of entities, each with their own metadata requirements. This document is an introduction to the kinds of schema that will be necessary for proper cataloging, identification, and retrieval in the radiological terrorism subfield. Schema for radioactive material sources and radiological terrorism responses are presented below, followed by sample records and a crosswalk between the two scheme and the Dublin Core. Schema were made as simple as possible (8 and 6 main fields, with several qualifiers, respectively) in order to make application quick, easy and consistent.

Fields are described in the following format:

(more…)

Domain

The ontology was created from the Radiological Terrorism Research Thesaurus, specifically constrained to the portions under the term “material sources” and “consequence management” (now called response). Other classes not found in these areas, but referenced by fields in these areas, are included, but not developed—this includes Organization, Event, Expertise, Person, and Material and their subclasses.

Background

Terrorism is an incredibly important issue, and agencies within the US and worldwide need to meet the challenge of compiling and organizing research in a number of fields in order to counter this very real threat. In addition, agencies have been criticized in the past for not sharing information, or maintaining knowledge organization systems (KOS) which are incompatible with each other. Work is often duplicated, and often vital information will be unavailable to some agencies even though it has already been archived by others.

Clearly, there is a need for a large-scale KOS that can be used to organize information efficiently and correctly, allow for complex analysis of information, and allow for easy knowledge sharing between agencies. The most flexible and powerful KOS, and therefore the most appropriate, is an ontology. Classes, subclasses and relationships are developed and then appropriate fields are created for each. This allows for faceted search and display, automated search, hierarchical organization of information, and interoperability with other systems.

Users

This is just a sample of the larger, more complete ontology. The complete ontology would be useful for virtually any person or agency dealing with anti-terrorism, counterterrorism, intelligence or consequence management. The ontology will allow risk assessment officers, for example, to see a list of every high-level material source in the United States and Canada and their coordinates. Medical first responders could use it to catalog and retrieve proper treatments for specific bioterrorism agents. And if widely-adopted, it would greatly reduce the barriers to efficient knowledge-sharing. If the Department of Energy we to license a new Uranium mine in Montana, the information would be immediate available to risk-assessment officers, instead of requiring time for the paperwork to make its way over to the Department of Homeland Security.

View and navigate the ontology

Ontologies Come of Age, Deborah L. McGuinness (2002)

One thing I noticed about this reading is the ample use of examples. If you look through all of the points below “Structured Ontologies and Their Uses” you can see what I mean. I find that to be a big problem with a lot of the things I’ve read about ontologies or the semantic web—there’s a lot of terminology and very little illustration. So in that regard, this was a good reading.

On the other hand, the more I play with Protege and read about ontologies, the more it seems to me that all the information science and library science people are moving closer and closer to the way relational databases work, without actually knowing it. For example, each of the classes in an ontology could be thought of as tables. The class/subclass relationship is like a one-to-many foreign key relationship, and since you can have more than one parent for any particular class you can have many-to-one and many-to-many relationships as well. Each of the fields or “slots” is just like a field in a relational table. There are only a few ways in which ontologies and relational databases differ, and they’re only really cosmetic differences. Relational databases have no notion of inheritance, for example, so fields for a table called “Thing” are not passed down to other other tables that have “thing_id” as a foreign key. But database applications and users create views which join the tables and do something similar. Also, Protege allows you to use a class or and instance as the type for a slot, whereas in relational databases it really only makes sense to use an instance.

There must be other people who have noticed this, and since a lot of web pages have relational database back-ends I have to assume semantic web pages will as well.