SIMS 213: User Interface Design & Development Marti Hearst Thurs, March 14, 2002

Outline: Site Search Interfaces 1.Motivation 2.Approach Integrate Search into Information Architecture via Faceted Metadata 3.Definitions: Information Architecture Faceted Metadata 4.Recipe Interface and Usability Study 5.Image Interfaces and Usability Studies 6.Conclusions

Motivation and Background

Claims Web Search is OK –Gets people to the right starting points Web SITE search is NOT ok The best way to improve site search is – NOT to make new fancy algorithms –Instead … improve the interface

The Philosophy Information architecture should be designed to integrate search throughout Search results should reflect the information architecture. This supports an interplay between navigation and search This supports the most common human search strategies.

An Important Search Strategy Do a simple, general search –Gets results in the generally correct area Look around in the local space of those results If that space looks wrong, start over –Akin to Shneiderman’s overview + details Our approach supports this strategy –Integrate navigation with search

Following Hyperlinks Works great when it is clear where to go next Frustrating when the desired directions are undetectable or unavailable

An Analogy text search hypertext

Main Idea Use metadata to show where to go next –More flexible than canned hyperlinks –Less complex than full search –Help users see and return to what happened previously

Search Usability Design Goals 1.Strive for Consistency 2.Provide Shortcuts 3.Offer Informative Feedback 4.Design for Closure 5.Provide Simple Error Handling 6.Permit Easy Reversal of Actions 7.Support User Control 8.Reduce Short-term Memory Load From Shneiderman, Byrd, & Croft, Clarifying Search, DLIB Magazine, Jan

A Taxonomy of WebSites low high Complexity of Applications Complexity of Data From: The (Short) Araneus Guide to Website development, by Mecca, et al, Proceedings of WebDB’99, Catalog Sites Web-based Information Systems Web-Presence Sites Service- Oriented Sites

An Important IA Trend Generating web pages from databases Implications: –Web sites can adapt to user actions –Web sites can be instrumented

Faceted Metadata

Metadata: data about data Facets: orthogonal categories Time/DateTopicGeoRegion 

Faceted Metadata: Biomedical MeSH (Medical Subject Headings)

Mesh Facets (one level expanded)

Questions we are trying to answer How many facets are allowable? Should facets be mixed and matched? How much is too much? Should hierarchies be progressively revealed, tabbed, some combination? How should free-text search be integrated?

How NOT to do it Yahoo uses faceted metadata poorly in both their search results and in their top-level directory They combine region + other hierarchical facets in awkward ways

Yahoo’s use of facets

Where is Berkeley? College and University > Colleges and Universities >United States > U > University of California > Campuses > Berkeley U.S. States > California > Cities >Berkeley > Education > College and University > Public > UC Berkeley

Recipe Collection Examples

From soar.berkeley.edu (a poor example)

From (a good example)

Epicurious Metadata Usage Advantages –Creates combinations of metadata on the fly –Different metadata choices show the same information in different ways –Previews show how many recipes will result –Easy to back up –Supports several task types “Help me find a summer pasta,'' (ingredient type + event type), “How can I use an avocado in a salad?'' (ingredient type + dish type), “How can I bake sea-bass'' (preparation type + ingredient type)

Metadata usage in Epicurious PrepareCuisineIngredientDish Recipe

Metadata usage in Epicurious PrepareCuisineIngredientDish PrepareCuisineDish I Select

Metadata usage in Epicurious PrepareCuisineIngredientDish I > Group by PrepareCuisineDish

Metadata usage in Epicurious PrepareCuisineIngredientDish PrepareCuisineDish I > Group by

Metadata usage in Epicurious PrepareCuisineIngredientDish PrepareCuisineDish I > Group by PrepareCuisine I Select

Recipe Information Architecture Information design –Recipes have five types of metadata categories Cuisine, Preparation, Ingredients, Dish, Occasion Each category has one level of subcategories

Recipe Information Architecture Navigation design –Home page: show top level of all categories –Other pages: A link on an attribute ANDS that attribute to the current query; results are shown according to a category that is not yet part of the query A change-view link does not change the query, but does change which category’s metadata organizes the results

Epicurious Basic Search Lacks integration with metadata

Usability Study: Epicurious

Epicurious Usability Study 9 participants Three interfaces –Simple search form –Enhanced search form –Browse Two task types –known-item search –browsing for inspiration

Epicurious Usability Study 9 participants – Independent Variables : 1) Epicurious Interface (Basic vs. Enhanced vs. Browse) 2) Task type (known-item search vs. browsing for inspiration) 3) Degree of constraint of query 4) Number of results required (1 vs. many) – Dependent Variables: 1) Time to find satisfactory recipe(s) 2) Navigation path (backtracking, starting over, revising queries) 3) Satisfaction with results of search 4) Satisfaction with individual system features (e.g. breadcrumbs, query previews, refine by hyperlinks) 5) Likelihood of using each interface in the future.

Epicurious Usability Study Participants were asked to: –Do 3 pre-specified searches in advance –In the lab: Specify a cooking scenario of interest to them –Search for 3 recipes for this recipe –Search for each recipe using each of the interfaces Complete several structured tasks –Along the way, answer questions about Getting closer or farther away from goal Satisfaction with search results Satisfaction with the interface

Epicurious Usability Study: Preference Data

Epicurious Usability Study Interface Preference

Epicurious Usability Study Feature Preference

Epicurious Usability Study Constraint-based Preferences

Usability Study Results: Summary People liked the browsing-style metadata-based search and found it helpful People sometimes preferred the metadata search when the task was more constrained –But zero results are frustrating –This can be alleviated with query previews People dis-prefer the standard simple search

Missing From Epicurious How to scale? –Hierarchical facets –Larger collection How to integrate search? How to allow expansion in addition to refinement?

Application to Image Search

Current Approaches to Image Search Visual Content and Cues, e.g., QBIC (Flickner et al. ‘95) Blobworld (Carson et al. ‘99) Body Plans (Forsyth & Fleck ‘00) –Color, texture, shape –Move through a similarity space Keyword based –Piction (Srihari ’91) –WebSeek (Smith and Jain ’97) –Google image search

A Commonality Among Current Content-based Approaches: Emphasis on similarity Little work on analyzing the search needs

The Users Architects and City Planners

The Collection ~40,000 images from the UCB architecture slide library The current database and interface is called SPIRO Very rich, faceted, hierarchical metadata

Architects’ Image Use Common activities: –Use images for inspiration Browsing during early stages of design –Collage making, sketching, pinning up on walls –This is different than illustrating powerpoint Maintain sketchbooks & shoeboxes of images –Young professionals have ~500, older ~5k No formal organization scheme –None of 10 architects interviewed about their image collections used indexes Do not like to use computers to find images

Development Steps Needs assessment. –Interviewed architects and conducted contextual inquiries. Lo-fi prototyping. –Showed paper prototype to 3 professional architects. Design / Study Round 1. –Simple interactive version. Users liked metadata idea. Design / Study Round 2: –Developed 4 different detailed versions; evaluated with 11 architects; results somewhat positive but many problems identified. Matrix emerged as a good idea. Metadata revision. –Compressed and simplified the metadata hierarchies Design / Study Round 3. –New version based on results of Round 2 –Highly positive user response

The Interface Nine hierarchical facets –Matrix –SingleTree Chess metaphor –Opening –Middlegame –Endgame Tightly Integrated Search Expand as well as Refine Intermediate pages for large categories

Usability Study on Round 3 19 participants –Architecture/City Planning background Two versions of the interface –Tree (one hierarchical facet at a time) –Matrix (multiple hierarchical facets) Several tasks Subjective responses –All highly positive –Very strong desire to use the interface in future –Will replace the current SPIRO interface

Study Tasks 1.High Constraint Search: Find images with metadata assigned from 3 facets (e.g., exterior views of temples in Lebanon) 1.1) Start by using a Keyword Search 1.2) Start by Browsing (clicking a hyperlink) 1.3) Start by using method of choice 2.Low Constraint Search: Find a low-constraint set of images (metadata in one facet) 3.Specific Image Search: Given a photograph and no other info, find the same image in the collection 4.Browse for Images of Interest

Interface Evaluation Users rated Matrix more highly for: –Usefulness for design work –Seeing relationships between images –Flexibility –Power On all except “find this image” task, users also rated the Matrix higher for: –Feeling “on track” during search –Feeling confident about having found all relevant images

Overall Preferences: Matrix vs. Tree Simple search (e.g. images of deserts) Complex search (e.g. exteriors of temples in Lebanon) Find images like this one OVERALL PREFERENCE Matrix Tree 5433

User Comments - Matrix “Easier to pursue other queries from each individual page” “Powerful at limiting and expanding result sets. Easy to shift between searches.” “Keep better track of where I am located as well as possible places to go from there.” “Left margin menu made it easy to view other possible search queries, helped in trouble-shooting research problems.” “Interface was friendlier, easier, more helpful.” “I understood the hierarchical relationships better.”

User Comments – Tree Pro –“Simple” –“More typical of other search engines I’d use” –“Visually simpler and more intuitive…Matrix a bit overwhelming with choices.” Con –“I found SingleTree difficult to use when I had to refine my search on a search topic which I was not familiar with. I found myself guessing.” –“SingleTree required more thought to use and to find specific images.” –“I do not trust my typng and spelling skills. I like having categories.”

Task Completion Times (Find Image is an artificial task: given a photo and no other info, find it in the collection.)

When Given A Choice … For each interface, one task allowed the user to start with either a keyword search or the hyperlinks. 3 chose to search in both interfaces 11 chose to browse in both interfaces 4 chose to search in Matrix, browse in Tree 1 chose to browse in Matrix, search in Tree

Precision and Recall Computed for tasks Pooling used for determining relevant set Precision based on what was visible on screen

Feature Usage Percentages (Dark bars show subtotals)

Feature Usage (%) Types of Actions

Feature Usage (%) Refining

Feature Usage – Expanding / Starting Over

Interface Evaluation Users rated Matrix more highly for: –Usefulness for design work –Seeing relationships between images –Flexibility –Power On all except “find this image” task, users also rated the Matrix higher for: –Feeling “on track” during search –Feeling confident about having found all relevant images

Application to Medline

Summary A new approach to web site search –Use hierarchical faceted metadata dynamically, integrated with search Many difficult design decisions –Iterating and testing was key

Summary Two Usability Studies Completed –Recipes: 13,000 items –Architecture Images: 40,000 items Conclusions: –Users like and are successful with the dynamic faceted hierarchical metadata, especially for browsing tasks –Very positive results, in contrast with studies on earlier iterations –Note: it seems you have to care about the contents of the collection to like the interface

Summary We have addressed several interface problems: –How to seamlessly integrate metadata previews with search Show search results in metadata context “Disambiguate” search terms –How to show hierarchical metadata from several facets The “matrix” view Show one level of depth in the “matrix” view –How to handle large metadata categories Use intermediate pages –How to support expanding as well as refining Still working on it to some extent

Advantages of the Approach Supports different search types –Highly constrained known-item searches –Open-ended, browsing tasks –Can easily switch from one mode to the other midstream –Can both expand and refine

Advantages of the Approach Honors many of the most important usability design goals –User control –Provides context for results –Reduces short term memory load –Allows easy reversal of actions –Provides consistent view

Advantages of the Approach Allows different people to add content without breaking things Can make use of standard technology

Some Unanswered Questions How to integrate with relevance feedback (more like this)? –Would like to use blobworld-like features How to incorporate user preferences and past behavior? How to combine facets to reflect tasks?