Levels of abstraction in Web-books – the communication perspective by Dov Te’eni in collaboration with Hadar Ronen Dov Te'eni: 1)Levels is general – anxious feedback 2)Talking to you now, you stop me when I go too fast and I explain when frown 3)webbook; think as adaptive communication the specific example Dov Te'eni: 1)Levels is general – anxious feedback 2)Talking to you now, you stop me when I go too fast and I explain when frown 3)webbook; think as adaptive communication the specific example Haifa University,

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. ebook Te’eni 2001: Printed: Webbook:

Motivation Offer a new way of thinking about a professional web- book: 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 3.4 Proposition 2: Certain strategies are selected for certain goals III 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) Proposition 2A Contextualization is selected for communication goals characterized by high cognitive complexity II 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). I

Abstract Entries Av. Time Dov Te'eni: 1.Number of visits declines with chapter, level 2.Time remains constant Dov Te'eni: 1.Number of visits declines with chapter, level 2.Time remains constant

Taking the (sequential) hi-way! Running out of fuel quickly. Dov Te'eni למרות כל הכלים Dov Te'eni למרות כל הכלים

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.

Control Initiate search Exit search Monitor search Flow of information Flow of control Goal Formation Category selection Information Extraction Integration 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)

W ould you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?" " W ould 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 "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.

Large number of levels transitions while non-focused browsing (task 9)

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. WFB NoWFB

Number of redundant transitions

TaskT1T2T3T4 T5a T5bT6T7 T8 T9 Dov Te'eni: ובבדיקת המעברים בין הרמות : משתמש מספר 36: ( מימשק " רגיל ") בשאלה 1: 2 מעברים, בשאלה 2: 2 מעברים, בשאלה 4: 0 מעברים. Dov Te'eni: ובבדיקת המעברים בין הרמות : משתמש מספר 36: ( מימשק " רגיל ") בשאלה 1: 2 מעברים, בשאלה 2: 2 מעברים, בשאלה 4: 0 מעברים.

Dov Te'eni: TaskT1T2T3T4 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