52
edits
IFD:Designing For Action/Nutzerforschung/BastianMarv (view source)
Revision as of 16:05, 7 December 2010
, 7 December 2010→8 interview
| Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
*bist du eher ein visueller, verbaler typ oder wie würdest du dich beschreiben? | *bist du eher ein visueller, verbaler typ oder wie würdest du dich beschreiben? | ||
**visuell oder dialektisch | **visuell oder dialektisch | ||
==Evalutation== | |||
There are few points that are commonly stressed over all the 8 interview partners. | |||
We first want to start search behavior related issues: | |||
It turns out that all of the interview partners, rather remember content than design features of a document. This statement is equivalent to the claim that people rather know what they are looking for | |||
than where it is. This can be compared to livingspace situation where you know what you're are looking for is the key, but you can't remember where they left them. Just after looking for a while without success we try to access second order information, like where did we have them last time et al. | |||
Our questionnaire also revealed this part of behavior where in allmmost all cases content was given at first an than was followed by document relations, design, or context the document appeared in. | |||
For document retrieval many rather use the browsing history or the addressbar. In the latter case hoping for autocompletetion to direct them to the questioned document. | |||
==Secondly organization of Bookmarks:== | |||
Impressively there exist people that keep the bookmarks folders organized and clean them up on a regular basis. But these People are rare, most interviewpartners claim that they have either ambiguous and inconsistent strategies when organizing their bookmarks. Many even report that they don't organize their bookmarks at all, leaving them with one huge folder that incorporates mostly all links at once. | |||
Whereas the clean keeping bookmark user appears to be a singularity, chaos and complexity make up the main experience of our interiew partners. This leads to a kind of evasive behavior, the option of bookmarking new documents is more or less ignored and documents are rather regoogled or reaccessed via the history. | |||
Mostly limiting the role of bookmarks to the domain of being a shortcut-icon in the navigationbar to access pages that are visited on a regular basis, and by default, would need no bookmarking to be accessed the user. | |||
==Third usage and ascribed purpose:== | |||
There was loads of things that were annoying to our interview partners. For once the folder structure does in no way map conceptually to the interweb itself, making it hard to organize your documents in a manner that resembles their natural habitat. Secondly since bookmarks but not the documents selves are stored on the computer why do bookmarks still have such a static structure like treediagramms - bookmarks ought to be rather relational online entities to be shared and distributed. Third there are bookmark sharing tools but just as bookmarks they are annoying when making the bookmark itself. It is oftenly noted that creating bookmarks is itself an annoying process, because most people want just safe a link and than later wonder what to do about it. In these situations all the sorting into folders or even having to tag them, giving them es decription or category, appears to be bluntly annoying. The discomfort seems to emerge from a conceptual ascription where bookmarks are conceived to be a fast way storing links to pages that should be retrieved later on. This is no ill conceived function of bookmarks but the they way bookmarks are stored and ordered, organized and represented messes with this paradigm. | |||
==Fourth general proposals for the better:== | |||
*saving whole, multple browser session instead of single bookmarks. | |||
*making bookmarks more graphical with favicons. | |||
*autosort bookmarks | |||
*sorting bookmarks by their semantic proximity in between the documents | |||
*bookmarks arranged by the timeline | |||
==Project proposals== | |||
As stated before all search referrs to the content of interest within a document. In this way all search focuses primarily on something that is not represented within the bookmarks. Since the document is not stored whithin a bookmark it can likewise not be accesssed without internet connection. Our approach will therefor assume that an interweb connection is available. We then try to parse through the documents referrenced by the bookmarks and calculate some semantic proxemity, over the complete set of stored bookmarks. teh primary interface will feature a simple text inputfield where the searchterms are inserted to. the given searchterms will teh discard subsets that don't contain the given terms, decreasing the cognitive visual load. The results will then be centered around the text input field indicating the accuracy of a result or confidence by a spacial proxemity in relation to the searchfield. We want also spacial proxemic representation in between the documents that qualify as a possible positive find in order to guide the attention of the searching user. | |||
The results should be representing the excerpt of the document that contained the querried term and the thumbnail of the documents page. | |||