Transcript research.haifa.ac.il

Dov Te'eni:
1)
2)
3)
Levels of abstraction in Web-books –
the communication perspective
Levels is general – anxious
feedback
Talking to you now, you stop me
when I go too fast and I explain
when frown
webbook; think as adaptive
communication
the specific example
by
Dov Te’eni
in collaboration with
Hadar Ronen
Haifa University, 1-1-2003
Talk plan
• Demonstrate the Web-book; Levels; navigation
• Motivation – professional texts can/should be organized
•Behavior: focused browsers, general browsers
• Study I: Observations of visitors
• Study II: focused browsers vs. assumed general browsers
• Study III: search tasks vs. browsing tasks
• Discussion
Category of e-Books
Current version – manual adaptation
with a view for fit between task,
medium, knowledge form, user type
and reading task.
Te’eni 2001:
Printed: http://misq.org/archivist/bestpaper/teeni.pdf
Webbook: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~teenid/ebook/teeni.htm
ebook
Motivation
Offer a new way of thinking about a professional webbook: adaptive communication
-Feasible to construct it on levels of abstraction
-Impose a hierarchical structure on complex hypertext
To all this we need to know more about how people
behave with these structures!!
Study I: observing the traces left
by unsolicited visitors
1500 visitors in 3 months, over 1 minute
3 levels of abstraction
III
3.4 Proposition 2: Certain strategies are selected for certain goals
II
3.4.0 General Explanation
At this stage in the paper, we develop the general proposition that certain strategies are
selected for certain goals. This general proposition is composed of five specific
propositions (depicted as arrows labeled A-E in Figure 3).
3.4.1 Proposition 2A
Contextualization is selected for communication goals characterized by high cognitive
complexity
I
3.4.1.1 Explanation
Contextualization is necessary when a message is liable to be misunderstood
(Gumpertz, 1982). Such a misunderstanding occurs most frequently when cognitive
complexity is high, for example with in non-routine situations involving a more
complex exchange of views (Daft and Lengel, 1984).
Dov Te'eni:
3
Abstract
1.
Number of
1
visits
declines with
chapter,
1.2
1.3
2.1
level
1.1
2.
Time
remains
constant
1.1.1
1.2.1
2.1.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
2
2.2
2.3
2.2.1
2.3.1
3.3.0
3.2.4
3.3.1
3.2.5
3.3.2
3.3.3
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.2.1
4.1.2
4.2.2
4.3.1
4.2.3
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.7.1
4.5.1
4.2.4
4.9.1
4.6.1
4.6.2
3.3.5
3.3.6
5
4.9
5.1
4.1.1
3.3.4
4.6.3
4.6.4
4.6.5
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
4.7.2
4.9.2
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.4.1
5.1.3
5.4.2
4.6.6
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.5.1
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.5.2
5.3.6
6
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.2
6.1.3
6.2.1
Entries
6.3
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.2.5
Av. Time
5.5.3
Dov Te'eni
‫למרות כל הכלים‬
Visits per page by abstraction level
.
.
High level
.
Middle level
.
Low level
.
.
Number of visits
.
.
Chapter number
Taking the (sequential) hi-way! Running out of fuel quickly.
Study II: focused browsing
General browsing – gathering information while
scanning an information space without a predefined
target in the text.
Focused browsing – retrieving information to solve
some problem or meet some target.
…
Expectation – focused browsing uses
transitions between levels instrumentally to
ensure effective communication, while general
browsing follow texts that seem interesting or
easy to access.
Goal
Formation
Control
Category
selection
•Initiate search
Integration
•Exit search
•Monitor search
Flow of information
Flow of control
Information
Extraction
Te’eni & Feldman, 2001
Theory
* People represent action at multiple levels of abstraction, and at
any one moment, one of these levels is their focal level (Vallacher
and Wegner 1987).
* People tend to remain on higher rather than lower levels of
abstraction, but shift their attention to a lower level of abstraction
when complexity increases and breakdowns occur.
+ People shift their attention to higher levels when they seek
orientation.
Quasi Experiment
Compare group of students with search tasks vs.
unsolicited visitors, assumed browsers.
Results
Focused browsers used TOC and
navigation diagrams more frequently,
and frequencies of visits by levels were:
General (61, 26, 13)
Focused (78, 16, 6)
"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from
here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said
the Cat .
"I don't much care where --" said Alice .
"Then it doesn't much matter which way you go," said the Cat .
…"
so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation .
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if only you walk
long enough“.??
Study III: experiment
1) search and browsing tasks;
2) enhanced vs. regular navigation
diagrams
Enhanced depicts high level of abstraction!
User Interface without manipulation (WFB + History)
User Interface with manipulation (WFB + History (gray areas))
User Interface with manipulation– as it should be seen at the end of
8 tasks, following the “Optimal” route.
Tasks
1.
What is the first communication goal?
2.
What is the name of communication strategy #2? *
3.
What is the name of communication goal #3?
4.
Read about communication impacts and name the person who
developed the theory of communicative action?
5.
With reference to Proposition 2B a) what is the name of the
proposition? b) on the impact of which strategy does it hypothesize?
6.
what type of communication complexity affects the strategy of
affectivity? *
7.
to which chapter does proposition 10 belong?
8.
go to proposition 8, then go the page located two pages before it, and
find the section title to which that page belongs, and go to it.
.
.
.
.
.
no WFB
.
WFB
.
.
.
.
.
b
a
Large number of levels transitions while non-focused browsing (task 9)
.
.
.
.
.
.
WFB
NoWFB
Tasks 3,6. : requiring knowledge of history of visits
User 51 (WFB) – 2,0 transitions
User 46 (NWFB) – 17 transitions Question3, User 50 (NWFB) –11 tran. Task 6.
All have correct answers.
Use r 46
T
N TN NN T
D D DN
N
N
N
TNN NNT
TTTTT
NN DTNNN D NN D DDDDDDDDN NN NN NDDDDNND NNN DNNDDTTTTTT T
NNNNNNNNNN N
N
NN N
NNN NNN NNN NNN
NNN
39
45
47
53
57
59
70
123456789
111
12
013
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
44
46
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
58
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
.
.
.
WFB
.
.
.
Number of redundant transitions
Dov Te'eni:
:‫ובבדיקת המעברים בין הרמות‬
‫ (מימשק‬:36 ‫משתמש מספר‬
,‫ מעברים‬2 :1 ‫"רגיל") בשאלה‬
‫ בשאלה‬,‫ מעברים‬2 :2 ‫בשאלה‬
. ‫ מעברים‬0 :4
Use r 36
N N
D DN
D
N
T
T NN TNNTD
NNN NN
TTTTT TTNTN
DD
N
N
NN N N N N NN
NN
N
NNN
N
30
32
38
40
12345678910
11
12
13
11416
517
11820
921
2224
325
26
228
729
31
33
34
336
537
39
41
42
44345
446
47
449
850
51
55254
355
55658
759
66062
163
66466
567
6689
Task
T1
T2
T3 T4 T5a T5b
T6
T7
T8
T9
Dov Te'eni:
Use r 21
D
D NN
D D
D
D
D
T
D D
TD
D DN T D
D
DD
N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142
Task
T1
T2
T3
T4 T5aT5bT6T7
T8
T9
Tentative conclusion
Users behave differently : task oriented, browsing
– different support? Different appropriations –
certainly less than we wished for!
Instrumental when task oriented; cognitive lazy
when browsing
Next – the effect of complexity of material / task