1. Content Metadata and Search Remarks to the Dublin Core Workshop Marti Hearst SIMS, UC Berkeley September 28, 2003

2. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Resource Finding and the Web Web search vs. collection search –When a single page is all thats needed, web search is fine Although validity is an issue –Unsolved problem: How to make source-focused search more intuitive on the web? One idea (untested): task-based search

3. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search What about Content? Dublin Core takes stances on the content- neutral aspects of metadata Q: What about content? –The Metadata Marsh Getting agreement on metadata terms is difficult Even worse when talking about content! A: Domain-specific solutions –Dont worry about cross-domain consistency (a necessary drawback) –Success: b-to-b protocols

4. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hypothesis (as yet untested): Assuming weve focused on a domain, agreement on category assignment can converge much more quickly by: 1.Focusing on the applications that will use the category system. 2.Designing metadata to be used in interfaces that show items represented by many different categories in a highly flexible, but intuitive, manner.

5. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search One Example: Flamenco Project Goal: create intuitive, inviting search interfaces that make use of hierarchical faceted metadata Challenge: How to provide flexibility and power without overwhelming? (Answer: careful interface design)

6. 6 The Flamenco Project Team Brycen Chun Ame Elliott Jennifer English Kevin Li Rashmi Sinha Kirsten Swearingen Ping Yee http://flamenco.berkeley.edu Research funded by: NSF CAREER Grant IIS-9984741 IBM Faculty Fellowship

7. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Our Approach Integrate the search seamlessly into the information architecture. –Use proper HCI methodologies. Use faceted metadata: –More flexible than canned hyperlinks –Less complex than full search –Help users see where to go next and return to what happened previously Whats new? –Putting hierarchical facets into a useable interface.

8. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Metadata: data about data Facets: orthogonal categories Time/DateTopicGeoRegion

9. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hierarchical Faceted Metadata Example: Biological Subject Headings 1. Anatomy [A] 2. Organisms [B] 3. Diseases [C] 4. Chemicals and Drugs [D] 5. Analytical, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment [E] 6. Psychiatry and Psychology [F] 7. Biological Sciences [G] 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. Anthropology, Education, Sociology and Social Phenomena [I] 10. Technology and Food and Beverages [J] 11. Humanities [K] 12. Information Science [L] 13. Persons [M] 14. Health Care [N] 15. Geographic Locations [Z]

10. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hierarchical Faced Metadata 1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] 6. [F] …… 7. [G] 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. [I] 10. [J] 11. [K] 12. [L] 13. [M]

11. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hierarchical Faceted Metadata 1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. [I] 10. [J] 11. [K] 12. [L] 13. [M]

12. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hierarchical Faceted Metadata 1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics 9. [I] Astronomy 10. [J] Nature 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures 13. [M] ….

13. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hierarchical Faceted Metadata 1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics Amplifiers 9. [I] Astronomy Electronics, Medical 10. [J] Nature Transducers 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures 13. [M] ….

14. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hierarchical Faceted Metadata 1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics Amplifiers 9. [I] Astronomy Electronics, Medical 10. [J] Nature Transducers 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures Calibration 13. [M] …. Metric System Reference Standard

15. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search The Interface Design Chess metaphor –Opening –Middle game –End game

16. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

17. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

18. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

19. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

20. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

21. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

22. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

23. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

24. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

25. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search The Interface Design Tightly Integrated Search Supports Expand as well as Refine Dynamically Generated Pages –Paths can be taken in any order –Links are idempotent Consistent Color Coding Consistent Backup and Bookmarking Standard HTML –No javascript

26. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search What is Tricky About This? It is easy to do it poorly –Yahoo directory structure It is hard to be not overwhelming –Most users prefer simplicity unless complexity really makes a difference It is hard to make it flow –Can it feel like browsing the shelves? –Yes, but we iterated the design 3 times

27. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Usability Study Participants & Collection –32 Art History Students –~35,000 images from SF Fine Arts Museum Study Design –Within-subjects Each participant sees both interfaces Balanced in terms of order and tasks –Participants assess each interface after use –Afterwards they compare them directly Data recorded in behavior logs, server logs, paper- surveys; one or two experienced testers at each trial. Used 9 point Likert scales. Session took about 1.5 hours; pay was $15/hour

28. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search The Baseline System Floogle Take the best of the existing keyword- based image search systems

29. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search sword

30. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

31. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

32. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search

33. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Hypotheses We attempted to design tasks to test the following hypotheses: –Participants will experience greater search satisfaction, feel greater confidence in the results, produce higher recall, and encounter fewer dead ends using FC over Baseline –FC will perceived to be more useful and flexible than Baseline –Participants will feel more familiar with the contents of the collection after using FC –Participants will use FC to create multi-faceted queries

34. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Four Types of Tasks –Unstructured (3): Search for images of interest –Structured Task (11-14): Gather materials for an art history essay on a given topic, e.g. Find all woodcuts created in the US Choose the decade with the most Select one of the artists in this periods and show all of their woodcuts Choose a subject depicted in these works and find another artist who treated the same subject in a different way. –Structured Task (10): compare related images Find images by artists from 2 different countries that depict conflict between groups. –Unstructured (5): search for images of interest

35. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Other Points Participants were NOT walked through the interfaces. The wording of Task 2 reflected the metadata; not the case for Task 3 Within tasks, queries were not different in difficulty (ts 0.05 according to post-task questions) Flamenco is and order of magnitude slower than Floogle on average. –In task 2 users were allowed 3 more minutes in FC than in Baseline. –Time spent in tasks 2 and 3 were significantly longer in FC (about 2 min more).

36. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Post-Interface Assessments All significant at p<.05 except simple and overwhelming

37. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Perceived Uses of Interfaces Baseline FC

38. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Post-Test Comparison 1516 230 129 428 823 624 283 131 229 FC Baseline Find images of roses Find all works from a given period Find pictures by 2 artists in same media Which Interface Preferable For:

39. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Post-Test Comparison 1516 230 129 428 823 624 283 131 229 FC Baseline Overall Assessment: More useful for your tasks Easiest to use Most flexible More likely to result in dead ends Helped you learn more Overall preference Find images of roses Find all works from a given period Find pictures by 2 artists in same media Which Interface Preferable For:

40. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Study Results Summary Strongly positive results for the faceted metadata interface. Moderate use of multiple facets. Strong preference over the current state of the art. –Chair of Architecture Dept: It felt like I was browsing the shelves! –This kind of enthusiasm is not seen in similarity- based image search interfaces. Hypotheses are supported.

41. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Study Summary Usability studies done on 3 collections: –Recipes: 13,000 items –Architecture Images: 40,000 items –Fine Arts Images: 35,000 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

42. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search 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 Allows different people to add content without breaking things Can make use of standard technology

43. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Metadata Availability Many collections already have rich metadata associated with them. Automated methods are improving. Have applied this to: –Tobacco documents archive –MEDLINE

44. M. HearstFaceted Metadata in Search Back to the Hypothesis This kind of tool may be helpful for resolving metadata creation wars. –Multiple paths to get to the same item –Different views on different subsets of items –No need to force everything into one hierarchy What do you think?