 |
 |
> Does this mean that a work-focused approach is not actually what users > want or need? Does it mean that the work-centered approach needs to be > implemented differently in the user interface? Are these results somehow > specific to music? Do they reflect users' familiarity with the typical > library catalog and the strategies they've become accustomed to using? FRBR is a wonderful model of our corner of reality. But users arenšt model-oriented, they are task oriented. They are trying to get stuff done. So the user interface has to make the translation from how systems like to think about the world to how users think about their work. And yes, how users think about their work is shaped by the systems and concepts theyšve interacted with previously, setting their expectations. But not entirely. To some extent, the Scherzo interface represents an acknowledgement of this after what we learned in the Variations project when trying to make a stepwise FRBRish disambiguation search interface. Herešs our paper describing that earlier effort: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/publications/ecdl2004/ecdl.pdf Mark -- Mark Notess Head, User Experience and Digital Media Services Library Technologies Indiana University Bloomington Libraries +1.812.856.0494 [log in to unmask] On 12/6/13, 10:18 AM, "Julie Hardesty" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Hi Kelley - I conducted that usability test on Scherzo and wrote that >report so I can answer your questions! I think a work-focused approach >can >work for users, but we had to scale back on what we assumed users would >understand on the search results page. After this test of the system, we >changed the search results interface to identify within the works list how >many scores and recordings contained that work, so the works list looked >more like a facet. The works list then wasn't just a list of titles, but >was tied more directly to the recordings/scores result list (which is >directly below the works list on the search results page). > >I do think that some of the testing results we saw reflected how users are >used to searching for music in traditional catalogs. While the work is a >key concept for musicians, they may have gotten used to the fact that >searching for or scanning a results list for a work title often isn't easy >(or even possible) in a library catalog so either the title of the album >or >a person's name is the real key to finding stuff. I think that also might >have been part of what threw people off seeing the works listed in the >search results. They didn't believe they were seeing titles of songs - >they thought they were seeing titles of albums or something that was some >sort of physical item. They weren't really sure what it was and so they >just skipped that list of things. So adding the info that, for example, a >work title is found on 5 recordings/scores really helped to identify the >works list as such. > >Music is kind of unique within FRBR since several works can be involved in >a single manifestation (recording or score) and a single work can have >many >different expressions (different performances by different people of the >same work). Other types of resources like books and movies don't often >line up with the FRBR model the same way. I can't say for sure whether or >not the interface we arrived at after this testing ( >http://vfrbr.info/scherzo/) could be used for other work-based resources >with a works list serving as a facet to narrow down results, but it seems >to be a good use of the FRBR model. > >Here's an example of a search that I think brings out the strength of what >this type of works list can do. Searching in Scherzo for something like >"symphony no. 5" as Keyword results in several works with that same (or >similar) title and lots of recordings and scores that contain expressions >of all of the different "symphony no. 5" works. The facet nature of >showing how many recordings/scores contain that work can help to >distinguish which work is the symphony no. 5 you actually want and helps >identify that works list as a list of "symphony no. 5" works by different >composers. > >I hope this is helpful - it was an interesting project to test these >FRBRized search concepts and it would be great to see further experiments >with this idea, specifically with non-music resources to see if it can be >applied or not. Let me know if you have any more questions about what we >did with the Scherzo interface and best of luck on your project! > >Julie Hardesty >Metadata Analyst >Metadata Resources & Systems >Library Technologies >Indiana University > > > >On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]> >wrote: > >> Thanks, Jon. I have seen the Variations work and also talked to Jenn >>Riley >> about it. It has definitely influenced me, although we are going in a >> slightly different direction and moving images have some different needs >> from music. >> >> One thing about Variations that struck me is this paragraph from the >> usability testing report ( >> >>http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/usability/usability >>Test/ScherzoUTestReport.pdf >> ): >> >> "There was an assumption among the development team that works would be >>a >> window for organizing and narrowing results in a way that users >>searching >> for scores and recordings would find useful. One of the main ideas >>behind >> FRBR is that the work, or the intellectual entity that is produced by >> people and is packaged in many forms, is the core information >>Scherzošs >> interface reflected that organization. 4 (See Appendix E, Fig. 14 for >> Scherzošs search results page.) But the participants tended to latch on >>to >> a personšs name and search for that name in a particular role. The >>reasons >> for this are not completely clear and further discussion follows, but >>it is >> worth bearing this finding in mind. Additionally, from the search >>results >> page, work results were clicked only 14 times in comparison to items in >> recordings & scores , which were clicked 65 times. Regardless of how the >> FRBRized data is organized on the back end, the interface needs to >>reflect >> the way users want to search, and that might not mean with search >>results >> organized by work." >> >> Does this mean that a work-focused approach is not actually what users >> want or need? Does it mean that the work-centered approach needs to be >> implemented differently in the user interface? Are these results somehow >> specific to music? Do they reflect users' familiarity with the typical >> library catalog and the strategies they've become accustomed to using? >> >> It does suggest to me that there should be more studies on how users >> interact with FRBRized data (and not just the clustering that so many >> discovery interfaces do now, but real FRBR-based data) and how FRBRized >> data is best presented. >> >> Kelley >> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Dunn, Jon William Butcher <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> Hi Kelley, >> >> If you haven't already, you might want to look at the music score and >> sound recording FRBRization work done on the Variations-FRBR project >>here >> at Indiana University. I'm not sure how directly useful this would be >>for >> your work with moving images, but there may be some useful mapping >>ideas: >> >> FRBR XML schemas: >> http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/schemas/1.1/index.shtml >> >> MARC->FRBR mapping specifications: >> >>http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/metadata/mappings/s >>pring2010/vfrbrSpring2010mappings.shtml >> >> Java FRBRization code and documentation: >> http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/index.shtml >> >> Jon