Visualization

Gang, W. (2006). Visualizations for digital libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(2), 88-94.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1082361561&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312523017&clientId=51710

Marcus, A. (2002). Information visualization for advanced vehicle displays. Information Visualization, 1(2), 95-102.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=420333511&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1312523268&clientId=51710

Abstract of the Articles:

Gang (2006) puts forward that effective visualization of user interface is based on “a detailed understanding of users, their information needs, and their tasks”. Online information retrieval tasks generally include searching, navigation, and browsing. He describes the various techniques and applications used by the digital libraries of Indiana University, the University of California System, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Tufts University. He also identifies the principal metaphors of Borner and Aqualab, which are the Semantic Treemap and Word Cloud respectively. In the end, Gang (2006) suggests that future researches on visualization should focus on the extent in which a “visual interface facilitates a user’s perception of information”.  

Gang (2002) focuses on the best practices in information retrieval visualization; but the factors in the development of “best practice” in visual prototypes are discussed by Marcus (2002).  Although the latter’s study is on the application of user-interface to vehicles, he provides a thorough discussion of the context in which IR user tasks are done. He identifies the underlying components of user interface as well as the cultural dimensions that must be considered in developing an effective user interface.  Marcus (2002) describes how culture affects the various components of user interface. Consequently, for visual images to become effective communication tools, developers must understand and incorporate these cultural dimensions into the user-interface.  

3 Things I Learned:

 

1.       Detailed enumeration of user tasks with respect to online information retrieval, viz: browsing of sources, viewing context of query match, visualizing passages within documents, rendering sources and results, reflecting time cost of interaction, managing multiple-search processes, integrating multiple search and browsing techniques, and visualizing large information sets.

2.       The components of user-interface are metaphors, mental models, navigation, interaction, appearance, and communication structures (i.e. lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic).

3.       Cultural dimensions cover power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and, long-term time orientation.

Application / Implication:

I am now more aware of the values and biases of computer icons and how they are presented.  What is commonly perceived as detached and random metaphors are value-laden.   Taking hold of that knowledge, I would be more considerate and patient to library users, especially the senior and elderly members of my work place.  Although we belong in the same society and organization, each of us carries our respective sub-culture values, which in turn affect our behavior towards the equally value-laden information and computing system.  The challenge is to find the conjunction where users’ expectation and system standards meet; and it is in that conjunction where the greater challenge lies for library and information students and professionals.