that search systems have been dominated for years by a library reference model; a practical “get in, do it and get out” transaction where a person wanting information asks a question and gets back what they asked for; rather like going to your local supermarket with a scribbled wish list of items. Compare that with a complex inter- action with a doctor, lawyer or teacher, where numerous questions may be asked, alternative paths explored, and fresh new goals and outcomes con- templated. The search process in this context becomes a highly individualised, iterative experience and makes inter- face design and the information seeking experience much more complicated. We all have our own perspective on how to get the best out of a system. How many of us have vented our frustration when Google has withdrawn a search feature or made an “irritating tweak” to its interface?
So, how do individuals assess, inter- pret or judge the value of their results and the resolution (or not) or their information need? Ruthkin introduced anthropologist Edward Hall’s (1976) concepts of high and low context culture frameworks to highlight the nature of interactions.
l High context interactions are implicit, influenced by tacit knowledge built through long term activities, associa- tions, familiarity, understanding and the accumulation of information. In a face-to-face context we can interpret changes in non-verbal communication through the facial expressions and body language of a close family member or long-term work colleague, for example. The longevity of association impacts the nature of the interaction. Amazon is an obvious online example, underpinned by a highly personalised relationship management ethos. Wisdom, intuition and personality define the interactive experience;
l Low context interactions imply looser connections. A typical example is a dialogue with a shop assistant or waiter in a restaurant. Our informa- tion requirements from this perspec- tive are invariably task-oriented or needs-based; practical, short, sharp exchanges. We want to get what we require quickly and effectively. Queries tend to be more structured, explicit and underpinned by a ‘linear logic’ as opposed to the ‘spiral logic’ of a high context interaction.
An understanding of these interaction models is crucial to IR design but also to understanding user satisfaction and the evaluation of relevance. We’re all aware of tangible relevance criteria like the accuracy, currency, quality, research integrity and cost of information, for
January-February 2023 INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 31
example. Perceptions of relevance run deeper however, driven by personal experience; by who we are. High context search interactions will require hierar- chies of system and interface support. Ian provided examples of collaborative interactive interface development pro- jects that experiment with these human conundrums. Parking global search tools, he highlighted a personal information management and retrieval initiative. Elu- sive emails, documents and photographs can still be notoriously difficult to retrieve. (How gratifying it is to know that most of us still struggle to organise or interact effectively with our own resources.) In 2007 one of Ian’s undergraduate students, Chris Jones, used photograph retrieval from his personal collection as a model to build an iterative, memory supporting retrieval system based on the notion that, invariably, we only tend to remember “bits of things”. Retrieving a photograph based on one fragment from his memory triggered the system to prompt him with multiple conceptual clues which in turn redefined the nature of the search and the results. In this context, searching becomes intuitive, truly inter- active and does not require instant recall, extensive knowledge or indeed experience of complex query syntax and formulation. Another observational study invited searchers to comment on their retrieval strategies as they interrogated Google so the team could experience the morphing of decision-making processes in situ. Searchers were assigned a task for 20 minutes or so, and invited to talk aloud as they navigated the screen. Eye trackers mapped interface reading and navigation. It became obvious that there was no such thing as a “good or well done” or “bad or not well done” search; just different approaches to searching. “People use
things differently depending on their task or motivation.” A “well done” search can often mean that the interface is used in the way that the designer designed it to be used.
There is so much potential to continue to progress research in this fascinating field by placing information seeking and retrieval within the broader societal and cultural framework of what people or populations want from or do with infor- mation. The ‘lived experiences’ of specific marginalised communities like recent im- migrants and BAME groups, for example. What of the impact on IR of information poverty and the inequality of information access as a social justice issue? Ian concluded his lecture by revisiting its
title: Google’s what you use when Alexa doesn’t know the answer, Uncle Ian. It was inspired by an innocent comment made by his young niece Kayla. People create their own models of how informa- tion works for them. Information seeking behaviour is social and shaped by life, so there are infinite iterations of queries and limitless perceived solutions to perceived problems. IR systems are indeed a means to an end. Kayla had a relevant point to make in her innocence. Alexa will evoke an immediate response to a query. No need for laptops, tablets or ‘phones with drained batteries. No data entry. No results to scroll and interpret. The emotional and human aspects of IR outweigh the cognitive mechanics of query formulation and are essential considerations in future search interface design. IP
Information about the Tony Kent Strix Award and the 2022 eighth annual memorial lecture is accessi- ble from the UKeiG web pages. Visit
www.cilip.org.uk/ and go to Community/Special Interest Groups.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
