Free is best, although a commercial product on a trial basis might work. Any suggestions?

Related Posts:

1. How do you compare two text classifiers?
2. Text Analytics Summit Europe – highlights and reflections
3. How do you measure site search quality?
4. Prostitutes Appeal to Pope: Text Analytics applied to Search
5. The role of Natural Language Processing in Information Retrieval

Informer: Spring 2013 Issue Out Now!

Editorial

By Udo Kruschwitz

Welcome back! This spring 2013 edition of Informer will bring you a range of fairly different articles, perhaps just the right mix for this time of the year. More about the articles later, let us first have a glimpse at what has been going on in the IR community. [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Information Wayfinding, Part 1: A Not-So-New Metaphor

By Tyler Tate

Browsing the Web. Surfing the Net. Navigating a Web site. Traversing a hierarchy. Going back. Scrolling up and down. Returning home. We’ve seen such metaphors throughout our history of using computers to interact with information. Haphazard though they may seem be, these metaphors highlight a universal reality of human psychology: we perceive the world – both physical and digital – in spatial terms. As George A. Miller [1] observed in 1968 [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Interaction Models for Faceted Search

By Tony Russell-Rose

Faceted search offers tremendous potential for transforming the search experience. It provides a flexible framework by which users can satisfy a wide variety of information needs, ranging from simple fact retrieval to complex exploratory search and discovery scenarios. But there is one design aspect of faceted search that is particularly hard to get right: the interactive behaviour of the facets themselves, i.e. how they should respond and update when selected. Surprisingly, the design choices at this level of detail can make a remarkable difference to the overall user experience: the wrong ones can make an application feel disjointed and obstructive, and increase the likelihood of returning zero results. In this post, we’ll examine the key design options and provide some recommendations [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Call for Book Reviews (Spring 2013)

By Cathal Gurrin

This issue we include another Call for Reviews in which we seek reviewers for a number of recently published books that may be of interest to the IR community. Books will be allocated for review on a first-come-first-served basis and you would have about one month to carry out the review. If you are interested in reviewing one of these books, please let Cathal know (cgurrin@computing.dcu.ie) which book you are interested in reviewing and we will arrange for a copy (paper or online format) to be sent to you along with review guidelines. For examples of previous book reviews, see the most recent issues of Informer. The currently available books (courtesy of our good friends at Springer) are [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Search: Emergent and Extrinsic Semantics

By John Tait

Semantics is a term often used in the search technology and information retrieval community these days. A distinction is drawn between semantic and traditional search, implying that somehow semantic search is a more advanced or sophisticated form [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Hybrid Parallel Classifiers for Managing Big Data with Hierarchies

By Nandita Tripathi

“Big Data” is one of the latest buzzwords in the IT industry nowadays. Companies are building up huge stores of data running into terabytes and more. Data hierarchies are getting bigger and bigger and more complex. At the same time, search/categorization speeds are also expected to increase. Single classifiers are now unable to deal with this huge data in real time [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Information Retrieval Group, University of Duisburg-Essen

By Norbert Fuhr

The Information Retrieval group at the University of Duisburg-Essen is part of the Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science Department in the Faculty of Engineering Sciences at the University of Duisburg-Essen. The department provides degree programmes in Applied Computer Science as well as in Applied Cognitive and Media Science, both at the bachelor and master level. Besides 11 computer science professors, there are also four professors of psychology, who are mainly teaching in the second program. This unique composition also leads to a user-oriented focus in the computer science programme [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Events Spring 2013

By Andy Macfarlane

_____________________________________________________________________

Applied research at the Competence Center Information Retrieval and Machine Learning of DAI Laboratory, TU Berlin

By Frank Hopfgartner

The Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) Laboratory at Technische Universita¨t Berlin, headed by Prof. Dr. Sahin Albayrak, works on providing solutions for a new generation of systems and services to support our everyday life, coined as “smart services and smart systems”. The institute currently employs over 100 researchers, post-docs, graduate students, and support staff. The main objective of the lab is to provide a bridge between Academia and Industry, which has led to strong ties with leading multinational companies, research institutes and various SMEs (Berlin is home to a large share of Europe’s ICT start-ups) [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

Made in Germany – Information Retrieval Research in Regensburg

By David Elsweiler

These are heady times for the German IR community. Norbert Fuhr’s recent winning of the Salton Prize not only rewarded a fantastic and long-term individual contribution to the field, but has also served to shed light on the whole IR scene in Germany – a fact underlined by this “Made in Germany” series [...]

_____________________________________________________________________

::: Opportunities for Authors :::

If you are an expert in information retrieval or any aspect of search who has strong writing skills, we invite you to contribute to Informer. Please send an article proposal to us at: irsg@bcs.org.

For more information about the BCS IRSG, please go to:

::: http://irsg.bcs.org/about.php

_____________________________________________________________________

::: About Informer :::

Informer is the quarterly newsletter of the BCS Information Retrieval Specialist Group (IRSG). Its aim is to provide insights and inspiration to researchers and professionals working in all aspects of search and information retrieval. Our articles provide accessible and timely coverage of important topics, ranging from focused, practical advice, to concise overviews of broader topics, and to deeper, research-oriented articles and opinion pieces.

The IRSG is a Specialist Group of BCS. Its mission is to provide a focus for the European IR community, facilitate communication between researchers and practitioners and promote the adoption of IR research within industry. We host a major European conference (ECIR) and provide an associated programme of workshops, seminars and events. The IRSG is free to join via the BCS website, which provides access to further IR articles, events and resources.

BCS is the industry body for IT professionals. With members in over 100 countries around the world, BCS is the leading professional and learned society in the field of computers and information systems.

_____________________________________________________________________

::: Visit Informer at http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/

::: If you have comments, questions, or suggestions for Informer, please contact us at irsg@bcs.org.

Just a quick shout out that on Tues May 14 I’ll be leading a workshop at Enterprise Search Europe on the subject of Search Interface Design. It’ll be held at the Hilton London Olympia, and will consist of a mix of formal presentations, group work and discussion. Above all, it’s a chance to discuss with like-minded folks your own challenges in the world of search interface design and usability, and to share ideas, best practices and solutions. I’ve appended a longer abstract below. If you have any queries, just drop me a line.

Hope to see you there!

Workshop Outline:

A key driver for change in the enterprise search community is the expectation that search engines should do more than simply deliver ten blue links. A focus on relevance, speed and other quantitative metrics may have worked up to now, but if the user experience isn’t right, it’s wasted effort. For your users, the system *is* the interface.

In this workshop we’ll look in look at how to:

• Differentiate between various types of search behaviour: known-item, exploratory, lookup, learning, investigation, etc.
• Understand the dimensions of search user experience and how to apply them to different contexts
• Apply design patterns and other key resources in solving practical design problems

We’ll include a mix of formal presentations and group discussion to enable delegates to analyse, evaluate and improve the effectiveness of search applications within their own organisation. Join us and bring your own search usability challenges!

Related Posts:

1. Search that sucks
2. Search and the Rorschach ink blot: do you see what I see?
3. Designing Search (part 6): Interacting with results
4. New year, New book
5. The Information Architecture of Discovery

So to that end, I am seeking examples of flawed design in the world of search. Have you any stories you’d like to share? Any examples of ‘search that sucks’? I can certainly think of a few which would make good subject matter. But before climbing on my own soapbox, I’d like to hear what other have to say.

If it’s something you’re happy to share publicly, feel free to post it here. If it’s a little more sensitive, just send me an email and I’ll make sure your confidentiality is maintained.

If I get enough replies I’ll post a summary here, along with any design insights and lessons learned.

Related Posts:

1. Search and the Rorschach ink blot: do you see what I see?
2. Designing Search (part 6): Interacting with results
3. New year, New book
4. The Information Architecture of Discovery
5. Search Solutions 2012: Highlights and Reflections

In case you missed it last time (since it filled up pretty quickly), there’s another chance to catch my search usability tutorial in Edinburgh on April 24. I’ll be presenting a full day course called Search Usability: Filters and Facets, which focuses on faceted search and provides deeper coverage of the key topics along with a variety of new practicals and group exercises.

It’s also very competitively priced from just £170 per person – contrast that with a rate of ~£659 a day for this comparable offering!

For further details and registration, see the UKeIG website. In the meantime, I’ve appended further details below.

Hope to see you there!

Course Outline: 

Faceted search offers tremendous potential for transforming the search experience. It provides a flexible framework that can satisfy a wide variety of user needs, from simple fact retrieval to complex exploratory search. It is now the dominant interaction paradigm for most eCommerce sites and is being increasingly applied to a wide range of enterprise search applications.

However, with this power comes a challenge: what kinds of categorisation schemes are effective and how should we use them to support search and navigation? Above all, how can we deliver search applications that address a growing range of user needs without compromising usability?

This course provides an introduction to the basic principles of search usability with a focus on the development of faceted navigation schemes that deliver search effectiveness and user satisfaction. Participants will:

• Explore the fundamental concepts of Human-Centred Design for information search and discovery
• Learn how to differentiate between various types of search behaviour: known-item, exploratory, lookup, learning, investigation, etc.
• Understand the dimensions of search usability and how to apply them to different user contexts
• Study the basic principles of faceted classification and how to use them to deliver effective search and navigation experiences
• The course will include both presentations and group work to enable delegates to analyse, evaluate and improve the effectiveness of search applications within their own organisation.

Who should attend: 

Intranet/web managers, information architects, search specialists, developers and managers of search projects, or anyone who either has implemented or is planning to implement a search application and wants to maximise the usability and effectiveness of their investment.

Course Presenter: 

Tony Russell-Rose is Director of UXLabs, a research and design consultancy specialising in complex search and information access applications. Before founding UXLabs he was Manager of User Experience at Endeca and editor of the Endeca UI Design Pattern Library, a resource dedicated to best practice in the design of search and discovery experiences. Prior to this he was technical lead at Reuters, specialising in advanced user interfaces for information access and search. And before Reuters he was Group Manager at Canon Research Centre Europe, where he led a team developing next generation information access products and services.

His academic qualifications include a PhD in human-computer interaction, an MSc in cognitive psychology and a first degree in engineering, majoring in human factors. He also holds the position of Honorary Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Interactive Systems Research, City University, London. He has published some 50+ scientific papers on search, user experience and text analytics, and is co-author of “Designing the Search Experience: the Information Architecture of Discovery“, published by Elsevier in 2012.

Costs (including lunch and refreshments): 

UKeiG members £170 + VAT at the current rate; others £210 + VAT at the current rate

Related Posts:

1. Designing Search Usability (tutorial at CHI 2013)
2. Designing Search (part 6): Interacting with results
3. New year, New book
4. The Information Architecture of Discovery
5. Search Solutions 2012: Highlights and Reflections

Folks who follow this blog will know that I try to strike a balance between topical, practitioner-oriented pieces and more academic articles such as scientific papers & other peer-reviewed content. I’m not always successful, but firmly believe that the most valuable use of this channel is to provide practical insights backed up by a solid theoretical basis wherever possible. Of course, it’s not an easy line to tread… get the balance wrong and you can end up with worthy but dull academic pieces that extend only marginally beyond the bounds of a narrow research community. Or conversely, anecdotal experiences that have little chance of delivering insights that generalise to other contexts and individuals.

But occasionally we get to deal with a theme that genuinely does cross boundaries – in other words, one that has a clear foundation in scientific research, but with immediate implications for design practitioners. I’m talking in particular about the search modes work – a theme that I’m finding has increasing value both as a way of describing information-seeking behaviour and for defining the types of design interventions and strategies needed to support that behaviour. At the moment, I’m working with Joe Lamantia and Stephann Makri to validate the initial framework, extending it to new domains and using on our own insights and practical experience to test its validity.

But we’ve reached a point where we’ve gone just about as far as we can with own insights and analysis. The coding process we’ve adopted is commonly used in the social sciences, but after a while the data starts to look increasingly like a Rorschach ink blot: we no longer perceive the ‘objective reality’ (to the extent that it exists) and instead see patterns and sequences that we expect to see (subconsciously or otherwise).

So, we need your help. Would you be interested in analysing our data? It entails reviewing our framework, then looking at a set of micro-scenarios and telling us what behaviours you see. I’m told the enterprise search scenarios take about 30 minutes to code, the site search ones perhaps 60 minutes. But if you have less time that we’ll of course be interested in any sort of constructive feedback – on both the process or its output.

We’d love to have your input on this. Feel free to contact me either here or offline!

Related Posts:

1. Designing for Consumer Search Behaviour
2. Designing Search Usability (tutorial at CHI 2013)
3. A Model of Consumer Search Behaviour
4. New year, New book
5. A Taxonomy of Enterprise Search

Just a quick heads up that on Thursday 2^nd May I’ll be presenting a tutorial at CHI 2013 in Paris called Designing Search Usability. This is part of a programme of training courses offered throughout the conference week, so there are lots more to choose from. Personally I wouldn’t mind attending the Speech-based Interaction course as well.

The course represents a wholesale revision of my original tutorial, updated to accommodate new concepts and exercises drawn from the book “Designing the Search Experience: the Information Architecture of Discovery”, published by Morgan Kaufmann in December 2012.

It’s also very competitively priced at just 20 euro per session (although it appears this rate is only available to conference attendees). For further details and registration, see the CHI 2013 website. In the meantime, I’ve appended further details below.

Hope to see you there!

Overview

Search is not just a box and ten blue links. Search is a journey: an exploration where what we encounter along the way changes what we seek. But in order to guide people along this journey, we must understand both the art and science of search usability.

This course will provide an introduction to the basic principles of search usability with a focus on holistic solutions that integrate information seeking theory with the user interface design practice. Participants will:

• Explore the fundamental concepts of human-centred design for information search and discovery
• Learn how to differentiate between various types of search behaviour: known-item, exploratory, lookup, learning, investigation, etc.
• Understand the dimensions of search user experience and how to apply them to different contexts
• Explore design patterns and other key resources and their role in solving practical design problems

The course will include both presentations and group work to enable delegates to analyse, evaluate and improve the effectiveness of search applications within their own organisation.

Instructor

Tony Russell-Rose is founder and director of UXLabs, a research and design consultancy specialising in complex search and information access applications. Before founding UXLabs he was Manager of User Experience at Endeca and editor of the Endeca UI Design Pattern Library, an online resource dedicated to best practice in the design of search and discovery experiences. Prior to this he was technical lead at Reuters, specialising in advanced user interfaces for information access and search. And before Reuters he was R&D manager at Canon Research Centre Europe, where he led a team developing next generation information access products and services. Earlier professional experience includes a Royal Academy of Engineering fellowship at HP Labs working on speech interfaces for mobile devices, and a Short-term Research Fellowship at BT Labs working on intelligent agents for information retrieval.

His academic qualifications include a PhD in artificial intelligence, an MSc in cognitive psychology and a first degree in engineering, majoring in human factors. He has published some 50+ scientific papers on search, user experience and text analytics, and is co-author of “Designing the Search Experience: the Information Architecture of Discovery“, published by Elsevier in December 2012. He is currently vice-chair of the BCS Information Retrieval group and chair of the IEHF Human-Computer Interaction group. He also holds the position of Honorary Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Interactive Systems Research, City University, London.

Related Posts:

1. Designing Search (part 6): Interacting with results
2. New year, New book
3. The Information Architecture of Discovery
4. Search Solutions 2012: Highlights and Reflections
5. Informer – Winter 2013 edition

Informer: Winter 2013 Issue Out Now!

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/

Editorial

By Udo Kruschwitz

Fed up with the snow? Tired of writing SIGIR papers?  No exam papers to mark? Then why not take a glass of whisky, sit by the fire and read this new issue of Informer … We have prepared quite a mix of articles this time. We start with an idea that the older readers will remember. [...]

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/editorial-5/

_____________________________________________________________________

IR Made In Germany – The German IR Special Interest Group

By Ingo Frommholz

Introduction – IR Made In Germany 2012 marked an exciting year for the German Information Retrieval community, when for the first time ever with Norbert Fuhr a German was awarded the prestigious Gerard Salton Award. Besides being a well-deserved personal award, this brings with it a nice appreciation of the work performed by the German [...]

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/ir-made-in-germany-the-german-ir-special-interest-group/

_____________________________________________________________________

Webis Group, Weimar

By Benno Stein

The Web Technology and Information Systems group, Webis for short (www.webis.de), is part of the media faculty at the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. The faculty provides, among others, the study course Computer Science and Media (both bachelor and master) and has a strong commitment to research in the field of digital media and information technology. The Webis [...]

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/webis-group-weimar/

_____________________________________________________________________

Information Retrieval between Disciplines: Computer Science and Information Science – The IR group at the University of Hildesheim

By Christa Womser-Hacker and Thomas Mandl

Information Retrieval Research in Germany is mainly done within the Computer Science Community represented by the Special Interest Group. But there is also a considerable amount of work done within the smaller Information Science Community in the German speaking countries. The University of Hildesheim forms a link between these otherwise largely distinct communities. Information Science [...]

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/information-retrieval-between-disciplines-computer-science-and-information-science-the-ir-group-at-the-university-of-hildesheim/

_____________________________________________________________________

New Book: Designing the Search Experience

By Tony Russell-Rose

Remember the Yahoo! Directory? It was a hand-built taxonomy that allowed users to browse and discover Internet resources. By categorizing sites by topic and location, it became the definitive map of the World Wide Web. But at the turn of the millennium, Yahoo! transformed itself from a directory into a search engine. The task of [...]

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/new-book-designing-the-search-experience/

_____________________________________________________________________

Search Solutions 2012

By Deirdre Lungley

I attended BCS-IRSG’s Search Solutions 2012 event in London on 29th November, having missed it for a couple of years, and was reminded of the usefulness of this event for an academic researcher in the field. The industrial speakers, presenting the challenges and rewards of Applied Information Retrieval, keep us abreast of the expectations and [...]

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/search-solutions-2012/

_____________________________________________________________________

Enterprise Search Europe 2013

By Katherine Allen

The third Enterprise Search Europe conference will take place in London on 15-16 May 2013, chaired by Martin White of Intranet Focus. BCS-IRSG Members can benefit from 20% discount on delegate places. “This year, the conference will focus on 5 key themes,” said Martin White. “SharePoint, the opportunities and challenges of big data, getting the [...]

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/enterprise-search-europe-2013/

_____________________________________________________________________

Events Winter 2013

By Andy Macfarlane

http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/2013/01/events-winter-2013/

_____________________________________________________________________

::: Opportunities for Authors :::

If you are an expert in information retrieval or any aspect of search who has strong writing skills, we invite you to contribute to Informer. Please send an article proposal to us at: irsg@bcs.org.

For more information about the BCS IRSG, please go to:

::: http://irsg.bcs.org/about.php

_____________________________________________________________________

::: About Informer :::

Informer is the quarterly newsletter of the BCS Information Retrieval Specialist Group (IRSG). Its aim is to provide insights and inspiration to researchers and professionals working in all aspects of search and information retrieval. Our articles provide accessible and timely coverage of important topics, ranging from focused, practical advice, to concise overviews of broader topics, and to deeper, research-oriented articles and opinion pieces.

The IRSG is a Specialist Group of BCS. Its mission is to provide a focus for the European IR community, facilitate communication between researchers and practitioners and promote the adoption of IR research within industry. We host a major European conference (ECIR) and provide an assopciated programme of workshops, seminars and events. The IRSG is free to join via the BCS website, which provides access to further IR articles, events and resources.

BCS is the industry body for IT professionals. With members in over 100 countries around the world, BCS is the leading professional and learned society in the field of computers and information systems.

_____________________________________________________________________

::: Visit Informer at http://irsg.bcs.org/informer/

::: If you have comments, questions, or suggestions for Informer, please contact us at irsg@bcs.org.

_____________________________________________________________________

Related Posts:

1. Informer – Spring 2012 edition
2. New year, New book
3. Informer is dead: long live Informer!
4. IR Book is out!
5. Search Solutions 2011: Highlights and Reflections

Of course, locating known items may be the stereotypical search task with which we are all familiar – but it is far from being the only one. Instead, for many search tasks we need to analyse, compare, verify, evaluate, synthesize… in short, we need to manipulate and interact with the results. While the previous post focused on informational features, our concern here is with interactivity. In this post, we consider techniques for managing and interacting with search results.

1. Pagination

One of the fundamental principles we explored earlier was the trade-off between detail and screen space in displaying search results: too detailed and they risk wasting valuable screen space; too succinct and vital information may be omitted. But no matter how compact we make them, at some point there will inevitably be too many results to display on a single screen. When this occurs, the common solution is to apply some form of pagination.

Pagination confers several benefits: it limits load time (by dividing the results into manageable ‘chunks’); it provides a measure of how far through the set the user has progressed, and shows how much further they can go. However, implementations vary considerably, with Google, Bing and Yahoo all offering their own distinctive interpretations:

Varying implementations of pagination at Google, Bing and Yahoo (desktop)

What they have in common is a list of numbered pages (with a highlight on the current page) surrounded by links to “previous” and “next”.  But they differ in that Google uses the opportunity to further reinforce its branding and idiosyncratic use of the Google logo, whereas Bing and Yahoo deliver a more immediately usable design through the use of larger, clearer targets with a visible rollover behavior. These implementations differ further when applied to the mobile context:

Varying implementations of pagination at Google, Bing and Yahoo (mobile)

Google, for example, maintains consistency with the desktop by using a control which differs little in appearance and behavior; loading a further 10 results each time. Bing, by contrast, offers a solitary link to “more results”, which returns a further page of results that load on demand. This means that the user can simply scroll to the bottom and the next set of results will be appended, without reloading the page. A similar approach is seen at Yahoo, in which 10 further results are appended to the current set on each invocation of the “Show more web results…” button. Interestingly, these approaches are now migrating to the desktop, with Google Images and Twitter both offering “infinite scroll” search results rather than discrete pagination.

While infinite scroll offers a more seamless experience (minimizing disruptive page reloads), and forms a natural expression of the fluid interactivity of smartphones and tablet displays, it does have a number of drawbacks. First, it is much harder for the user to determine precisely where they are in the result set or to navigate to a particular section. Second, it is no longer possible to bookmark an individual page of results.

Note that in all the above examples there is no control to navigate directly to the first or last page. This is because on the web it may not be possible to calculate the exact number of results for a given query, or worthwhile offering access to the last page in the list (e.g. if they are sorted by relevance). Google, for example, does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. By contrast, for more modest collections such as online discussion forums and other community sites, it may be possible to allow more direct access to the complete result set. In such cases, the pagination controls may be augmented with options to navigate directly to the first or last item:

Augmented pagination controls at Design Snack, Drupal.org, and Programmable Web

2. Sorting and Filtering

In web search, it is common for results to be ordered by relevance to the query. But in other environments, such as online retail, a variety of other sort orders may be possible. These may vary from universal attributes such as price, customer rating or delivery date, to category-specific attributes such as release date for audio content, or publication date for books, and so on. Sort options such as these are commonly implemented using a drop down control, which allows the user to alternate between different sort keys:

Drop down controls for sorting at Walmart, Amazon and Littlewoods

For some types of highly attributed content it is possible to present the results in a manner that renders the sorting options even more apparent and invites greater interaction. At automotive classified site Carzone, for example, search results can be sorted by year, mileage, engine (size), price, etc.

Column headers for sorting at Carzone.ie

This is achieved using a tabular panel, in which the column headers can be selected to choose a sort key and toggle the direction (ascending or descending). Likewise, searching the iTunes desktop app produces a heterogeneous, blended results page, but songs are rendered in their own tabular panel to allow sorting along the dimensions of album, artist, time, popularity, etc.

Column headers for sorting at iTunes

However, sorting using column headers has a number of shortcomings. For example, the sort direction is not always immediately apparent, and may not default to the most common use case. In addition, sorting by attributes not displayed becomes impossible, and common retail use cases such as sorting by popularity or bestselling become problematic since their corresponding column would be unlikely to contain anything particularly useful in each of the table cells (Nudelman, 2011).

Note also that not all attributes are equally meaningful as sort keys. For example, the sequence generated when sorting by a nominal attribute such as name or description is not inherently meaningful in the same way as sorting by a quantitative attribute such as mileage or price (Hearst, 2009). However, the alphabetical ordering does support other common use cases, such as scanning the list to find a particular model name.

In addition to sorting, most online retailers also offer options for filtering results. In principle, sorting and filtering are quite different operations, in the sense that sorting changes the display order of the results, whereas filtering actually removes items from that set. But in practice, to many users – particularly those with low technical expertise – they are practically indistinguishable. This is partially due to use of an inappropriate mental model, but is also an emergent property of the interaction: since many users do not explore beyond the first page of results, sorting controls act like a de facto filter, in the sense that they remove items from the immediate view.

A kind of hybrid example of sorting and filtering (and pagination) can be seen at the iPhone App Store. Here, content is grouped into various default categories to facilitate browsing along various popular dimensions (such as ‘Top Paid, ‘Top Free’, etc.). Selecting the appropriate category presents the results filtered by that category (e.g. ‘Top Paid’ filters out any free apps), but also presents them with an associated sort order. However, in some cases the sort key is an independent attribute (e.g. Top Paid filters by category but sorts by popularity), whereas in some cases the category serves both functions (Top Grossing both filters and sorts by revenue):

Button controls for sorting on the iPhone App Store

A more mainstream use of filtering is to allow users to refine their results by one or more independent dimensions or facets. This approach, known as faceted search, has become the dominant paradigm among online retail and many other commercial search applications. We’ve looked at faceted search in more detail in previous posts, exploring fundamentals such as layout and display along with more advanced topics such as wayfinding techniques and interaction models.

3. Query clarification

Earlier we looked at search result diversity, and explored the ways in which this can be used to communicate the alternative meanings for vague and ambiguous queries.  A query such as ‘apple’, for example, might return results relevant to the company or the fruit. By including these alternative meanings as part of the first results page, we invite users to explore the subtleties of their information need and help them to build their own mental map of the information landscape.

But sometimes it is appropriate to resolve the ambiguity in a more direct manner. In online retail, for example, it is in everybody’s interest to help the user define their query more precisely, so that products offered more closely match their needs and intentions. A query for ‘MP3’ might return results for players, accessories, or indeed content, but until their real intention is established, the dialogue remains something of a guessing game. Instead, we should first invite the user to clarify their intent (Tunkelang, 2009).

There are a number of approaches to query clarification. One of the most common is to display the alternative interpretations in the form of matching categories, and invite the user to choose a more precise category for their information need. Amazon, for example, does this is a quite subtle manner. A query here for ‘mp3’ returns several million results, including players, accessories and content on the first page (along with best bets such as a promotion for the Amazon MP3 store and featured results for the Electronics Store). However, the primary navigation option in the left hand menu is a category selector:

Query clarification by category selection at Amazon

In addition, the user is invited to choose a department (category) to enable sorting. Once a category is selected, facets specific to that category can then be offered in the left hand menu (e.g. storage capacity and features for an MP3 player, genre for a music download, and so on).

A more conspicuous variant could be seen at electrical retailer Comet. As expected, an ambiguous query here such as ‘washer’ returns a mixed set of results. However, this time the category selector is displayed much more prominently, directly above the search results. Both show the number of results returned, but Comet fails to display the current query in editable form (breaking the principle we discussed earlier):

Prominent category selection at Comet

A more direct approach such as this is more likely to solicit an early clarification, but at the expense of pushing ‘genuine’ products further down the page. Clearly, there is a balance to be found here: even an innocuous query such as ‘fridge’ can generate a category selector that extends over 20 lines in height, occupying almost all the visible screen space (before scrolling).

Indeed, the difference in approach is also reflected in their respective mobile sites: Amazon focuses on the search results, with a relatively unobtrusive invitation to select a category (from the departments listed at the foot of the page), whereas Comet focuses on category selection:

Contrasting approaches to query clarification at Amazon and Comet

A more immersive approach can be seen at online retailer Littlewoods. Here, the category selector occupies the whole result page, showing examples from each category as separate groups. These groups include an invitation to view the complete set, e.g. “View all 69 results in Electricals”. The selector is also supported by a faceted menu on the left which displays the category headings as menu items:

Full-page query clarification at Littlewoods

But presenting a category selector isn’t the only way to support query clarification. For certain popular queries, it may be possible to adopt a ‘best bets’ approach that defaults instead to the most likely category. For example, a query for ‘washer’ at online retailer Debenhams returns a custom landing page specifically for kitchen appliances. Although the precise query context is missing from this page, further clarification is still possible by selecting a sub-category from the faceted menu on the left:

A ‘best bets’ approach to category selection at Debenhams

Of course, all the above approaches are ways of encouraging a user to clarify their intent after the query has been entered. But we shouldn’t forget the techniques we can apply before we even get to that point. As we saw earlier, as-you-type suggestions can make a profound difference to the process of query (re)formulation, correcting spelling mistakes and offering suggestions that the user might not have otherwise considered.

And once the query has been entered, related searches provide an additional indication of diversity, offering a starting point for further query clarification (such as ‘mp3 downloads’ vs. ‘mp3 player’ in the example above). And of course the facets themselves represent a conceptual map of the information landscape, showing areas of abundance and inviting further productive exploration and discovery. Each of these plays a part in the information journey, facilitating the user’s progress from a vague or ambiguous query to the satisfaction of their information need.

4. Comparing

As we saw earlier, there is a tension in the design of search result snippets: too detailed and they waste screen space; too brief and they induce pogo-sticking. Clearly, a balance needs to be found. But the optimal level of detail is not a static concept. Instead, it depends on the context; in particular, the user’s search mode.

In the early stages of the information journey, the user’s primary concern is on formulating effective queries and developing an initial overview of the results. This stage is characterised by search modes such as locating and exploring, and snippets play a vital role in helping the user identify promising items worthy of further examination. But once those candidates have been identified a different pattern of behaviour emerges, where the focus is less on exploring, and more on analysing and comparing individual items.  These search modes are fundamental to online retail, where users need to identify the best option from many available. In this context, a different type of view is needed.

A common approach is to provide access to what is popularly known as a comparison view. Computing equipment retailer Dabs, for example, provides a column of checkboxes next to each search result, which marks items for comparison:

Selecting items for comparison at Dabs

Selecting a “Compare” button at the head of the column the opens a separate view, which shows the full detail of each item in a separate column, enabling easy comparison of the individual product attributes:

Product comparison at Dabs

However, this view also indicates that the user has inadvertently exceeded the maximum number of items that can be shown in the comparison view. A better approach is to avoid possibility at the outset. Online retailer Best Buy, for example, shows both the size limit and the current state of the comparison view using a dynamically updating preview:

Selecting items for comparison at Best Buy

The key goal of the comparison page is, of course, to facilitate analysing and comparing individual products. Best Buy offers further support for these search modes by organising the attributes within logical groups and providing an option to automatically highlight the differences between products:

Highlighting differences between products at Best Buy

Electrical retailer Comet also provides a comparison preview function using a pop up ‘item tray’ attached to the foot of the page. However, their comparison page opens as a dialog overlay within the context of the search results page, eliminating the disruptive effect of a page reload (and observing the design principle to ‘stay on the page’ (Scott and Neill, 2009)). Comet, with its strong emphasis on query clarification through category selection, also maintains independent comparison lists for each of its major product categories. This prevents the somewhat nonsensical scenario of a user inadvertently trying to compare completely unrelated items (such as toasters and televisions).

Product comparison at Comet

5. Summary and best practices

Search results pages play a key role in all stages of the information journey. At the outset, they can guide the user in clarifying the query and their broader information needs. Pagination, sorting and filtering then provide the means to explore the results to find promising directions. And in the latter stages, comparison views can support the detailed examination of individual items.

Pagination

• Communicate the range of pages using large target areas and a hover effect where appropriate
• Identify the current page, and provide Previous and Next links
• Consider infinite scroll approaches where contextually appropriate, e.g. mobile
• Where appropriate (e.g. for limited collections), provide First and Last links on the outside
• Allow users to change the default pagination setting (number of results per page)

Sorting and Filtering

• Provide sorting options that are specific to the category of results
• Consider offering a tabular style where sorting is likely to be a common use case (e.g. for highly attributed data)
  • Note that this approach may not be suitable for certain retail use cases such as sorting by popularity
• Sorting and filtering are often misunderstood by users, particularly those with low technical expertise. Sorting can be seen as having the effect of filtering in that it removes items from the immediate view

Query clarification

• Provide support to clarify vague or ambiguous queries early in the information journey
• If using a category selector, choose a location and configuration that reflects its importance in the dialogue and ensure that it scales appropriately for highly ambiguous queries and across platforms
• Consider a ‘best bets’ approach for certain popular queries

Comparing

• Communicate the maximum size the comparison view, and provide a dynamic preview where possible
• Allow users to highlight the differences between rows in the comparison view
• Maintains independent comparison lists for the major result categories

References

1. Marti Hearst (2009) Search User Interfaces. Cambridge University Press
2. Greg Nudelman (2011) Designing Search: UX Strategies for eCommerce Success. Wiley
3. Bill Scott and Theresa Neil, 2009. Designing Web Interfaces: Principles and Patterns for Rich Interactions. O’Reilly Media.
4. Daniel Tunkelang, 2009. Faceted Search. Morgan Claypool.

Related Posts:

1. Designing Search (part 5): Results pages
2. New year, New book
3. Designing Search (part 4): Displaying results
4. The Information Architecture of Discovery
5. Designing Search (part 3): Keeping on track

I’m guessing that by now most people may have seen this, but just in case – and for the record – here is the official announcement of the publication of Designing the Search Experience: the Information Architecture of Discovery. It’s the product of almost two years effort by Tyler and me, so we’re both relieved and elated to finally see it in print.

I’ve appended a brief summary below. If you’d like to see more – including a free sample chapter – check out the book website. If you’re interested in reviewing it, drop me a line.

Designing the Search Experience: the Information Architecture of Discovery

Search is not just a box and ten blue links. Search is a journey: an exploration where what we encounter along the way changes what we seek. But in order to guide people along this journey, we must understand both the art and science of search.

WHAT YOU’LL LEARN

Designing the Search Experience weaves together the theories of information seeking with the practice of user interface design. This definitive guide will enable you to:

• Understand how people search and how the concepts of information seeking, information foraging, and sensemaking underpin the search process.
• Apply the principles of user-centred design to the search box, search results, faceted navigation, mobile interfaces, social search, and much more.
• Design the cross-channel search experiences of tomorrow that span desktop, tablet, mobile, and other devices.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

SECTION 1: A FRAMEWORK FOR SEARCH & DISCOVERY
Chapter 1: The User
Chapter 2: Information Seeking
Chapter 3: Context
Chapter 4: Modes of Search & Discovery

SECTION II: DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Chapter 5: Formulating the Query
Chapter 6: Displaying and Manipulating Results
Chapter 7: Faceted Search
Chapter 8: Mobile Search
Chapter 9: Social Search

SECTION III: DESIGNING THE FUTURE
Chapter 10: Cross-Channel Information Interaction

Includes contributions from Ann Blandford, Karen Church, Rory Hamilton, James Kalbach, Joe Lamantia, Greg Nudelman, Louis Rosenfeld, Ian Ruthven, Daniel Tunkelang, and Martin White.

“In Designing the Search Experience, Tony Russell-Rose and Tyler Tate provide a unique synthesis that integrates scholarly research and best practice into a compelling story about how we can make search better”. Peter Morville, author of Search Patterns: Design for Discovery

“This book is not only useful for people interested in search, but for all user experience and interface designers”. Ricardo Baeza-Yates, author of Modern Information Retrieval

Related Posts:

1. The Information Architecture of Discovery
2. Designing for Consumer Search Behaviour
3. IR book is out!
4. Designing Search (part 5): Results pages
5. Designing Search (part 4): Displaying results