1

Understanding and Serving Users

INF 382C Unique number 28500

Spring 2012

Yan Zhang

School of Information

University of Texas at Austin

Class time: Thursday: 9:00 – 12:00 PM

Classroom: UTA 1.208

Course URL: Class materials and announcements will be posted on Blackboard:

https://courses.utexas.edu

Office: UTA 5.434

Office hrs: Thursday: 1:00 – 2:00PM; By appointment other times

Tele: 512-471-9448

Email: yanz@ischool.utexas.edu

Note: This is an old syllabus, you will be able to get an idea of the scope of the class. The new

one will be uploaded soon.

2

1. Course description

In this class, students will learn the rationale for investigating users’ information

needs and their information searching/seeking behavior in the context of Information and

Library Science (ILS), the history of user studies, different perspectives and approaches

to user studies, and research methods employed to study users of various information

systems or information services. Based on the knowledge about users, students will

discuss how to design information systems, interfaces, and information services to better

serve different user communities in the Web 2.0 environment.

2. Course objectives

By the end of the course, we will be able to:

- Articulate why we need to study information behavior of a certain community of

users

- Review, summarize, and document the existing research on information needs and

information behavior of the community of users

- Recognize the research methods that are used in user studies

- Apply your knowledge about the user community to analyze, evaluate, design, or

improve information services for the community

- Recognize and apply different means made possible by Web 2.0 applications to

promote our information services

3

3. Texts

3.1 Required texts

1. Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul (2002). The Social Life of Information. Boston:

Harvard Business School.

2. Norman, Donald A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.

3. Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond

Human-Computer Interaction (2nd

ed or 3rd

ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

4. Additional readings, mainly journal articles, will be posted on the Blackboard

3.2 Recommended texts

1. Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.) (2005).

Theories of Information Behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

2. Suchman, Lucy. (2007). Human-machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated

Actions (2nd

ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. (Electronic version of the

book is available through the library catalog)

3. Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting,

Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann.

4

4. Policies

4.1 Policies concerning assignments

- Assignments must be submitted by midnight (11:59PM) on the due date.

- In fairness to students who turn in assignments on time, all late papers will be

penalized by lowering the earned grade one grade level (e.g., from A- to B+; from B

to B-) for each day that the assignment is late.

- No assignment submitted more than one week after the due date will be accepted.

- These penalties will not apply to students who know in advance that they will be

submitting an assignment late, and let me know in advance. "In advance" means up

until 24 hours before the class session in which the assignment is due.

4.2 Policies on class attendance and participation

- Reading assignments must be done before class so that you can ask questions and

participate in discussions in class.

- You must participate in class discussions. In-class discussions and activities play an

important role in this class. Extensive participation in class discussion will be an

essential element of your learning success on the subject of understanding and serving

users. Active involvement in learning increases what is remembered, how well it is

assimilated, and how the learning is used in new situations. Class participation will be

graded as part of your final grade.

- Attending each class is highly recommended. If you know in advance that you must

miss a class, let me know in advance (up until 24 hours before the class session).

- If you miss a class session, unexpectedly, get in contact with me or the TA ASAP.

UT honor code applies in this class. Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism,

cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated in this class. Please refer to the UT

General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 for more

information.

The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for qualified

students with documented disabilities. The University’s Office of the Dean of Students at

471.6259, 471.4641 YYT, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.

The instructor reserves the right to make revisions or amendments to the syllabus as

the semester progresses (to improve the class or to respond to unexpected events). The

course site, as well as direct email messages, will inform students about changes in the

course schedule, readings, discussion questions, and so on. All course participants are

encouraged to use both means to communicate with each other, or notify the class about

interesting events, news articles, or other sources.

5

5. Grading

5.1 Assignments and points

Assignment Points

1 Prepare questions and participate in class discussion 15

2 Class attendance 5

3 IRB Training 5

4 Topic presentation 15

5 Group project

IRB application 10

Literature review 15

Research paper 20

Final project presentation 15

Total 100

5.2 Grading scale

The purpose of grades is to identify degrees of mastery of subject matter. Here is how I

will relate grades to mastery:

A Mastery of course content at the highest level of attainment that can

reasonably be expected of students.

B Strong performance demonstrating a high level of attainment for a

student.

C A totally acceptable performance demonstrating an adequate level of

attainment for a student

D A marginal performance in the required exercises demonstrating a

minimal passing level of attainment for a student.

F

For whatever reasons, an unacceptable performance. The F grade

indicates that the student's performance in the required exercises has

revealed almost no understanding of the course content.

Semester grades will be computed as follows:

A = 94-100; A- = 90-93

B+ = 87-89; B = 84-86; B- = 80-83

C+ = 77-79; C = 74-76; C- = 70-73

D+ = 67-69; D = 60-66

F = anything below 59

6

5.3 Evaluation rubric for presentations in this class

For all your presentations in this class (topic presentations and final project presentations),

you are encouraged to use Powerpoint or some other presentation program (such as Open

Office or Lotus Symphony). The grading rubric for the presentation is listed below (Note:

This rubric was developed by Information Technology Evaluation Services, NC

Department of Public Instruction. However, it was slightly modified for our purposes.)

Organization

Unacceptable Audience cannot understand presentation because there is no sequence of

information

Acceptable Audience has difficulty following presentation because presenter jumps around

Good Presenter presents information in logical sequence which audience can follow

Excellent Presenter presents information in logical, interesting sequence which audience

can follow

Subject Knowledge

Unacceptable Presenter does not have grasp of information; presenter cannot answer questions

about subject

Acceptable Presenter is uncomfortable with information and is able to answer only

rudimentary questions

Good Presenter is at ease with expected answers to all questions, but fails to elaborate

Excellent Presenter demonstrates full knowledge (more than required) by answering all

class questions with explanations and elaboration

Graphics

Unacceptable Presenter uses superfluous graphics or no graphics

Acceptable Presenter occasionally uses graphics that rarely support text and presentation

Good Presenter's graphics relate to text and presentation

Excellent Presenter's graphics explain and reinforce screen text and presentation

Spelling & Grammar

Unacceptable Presenter's presentation has more than one misspelling and more than one

grammatical error

Acceptable Presentation has exactly one misspelling and/or exactly one grammatical error,

which a spell- or grammar checker would catch

Good Presentation has exactly one misspelling and exactly one grammatical error,

which a spell- or grammar checker would not catch

Excellent Presentation has no misspellings or grammatical errors

Eye Contact

Unacceptable Presenter reads all of report with no eye contact

Acceptable Presenter occasionally makes eye contact, but still reads most of report

Good Presenter maintains eye contact most of the time but frequently returns to notes

Excellent Presenter maintains eye contact with audience, seldom returning to notes

Elocution

Unacceptable Presenter mumbles, incorrectly pronounces terms, and speaks too quietly for

audience in the back of room to hear

Acceptable Presenter's voice is low. Presenter incorrectly pronounces terms. Audience

members have difficulty hearing presentation.

Good Presenter's voice is clear. Presenter pronounces most words correctly. Most

audience members can hear presentation.

Excellent Presenter uses a clear voice and correct, precise pronunciation of terms so that all

audience members can hear presentation.

7

6. Assignments

6.1 Overview

Here are the assignments for this course.

Assignment Due date Points

1 Prepare questions for each class and participate in

class discussion

Each Wednesday by

2:00PM 15

2 Class attendance 5

3 IRB Training Feb. 2 5

4 Topic presentation Varies dates 15

5 Group project

IRB application March 1 10

Literature review Apr. 5 15

Final project presentation May 3 or May. 4 15

Research paper May 4 20

100

6.2 Requirements for each assignment

1. Prepare questions and participate in class discussion

Students are required to physically attend each class and arrive at each class promptly.

Class attendance will be graded as part of your final grade. If you know in advance that

you must miss a class, let me know in advance (up until 24 hours before the class session).

If you miss a class session, unexpectedly, get in contact with me ASAP.

Before each class, students are required to prepare one question, either about the

readings or inspired by the readings, and post the question to the Facebook discussion

board by 2:00PM on each Wednesday.

The instructional materials of this class provide a knowledge structure to assist you in

learning the subject matter of this class. However, critical thinking and problem solving

abilities are often cultivated by discussing problems and issues of interest with your

peers. Therefore, you must participate in class discussions, including discussions on the

Blackboard discussion forums. Class participation will be graded as part of your final

grade.

2. IRB training

8

Each student is expected to complete the four-part Human Participant Training

provided by the UT office of Research Compliance and Support and to demonstrate to the

instructor successful completion of this online training. To access the training, see

http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humansubjects/training/index.html. Confirmation of

completion should be emailed to the instructor (yanz@ischool.utexas.edu).

3. Topic presentation

Each student will take on one topic from the topics listed in the table and present the

topic to the class. Each presentation should last about 20-30 minutes. There will be

additional 5 minutes for question and answer. Use visual aids such as PowerPoint in your

presentation.

Topics Date Presenter

Section I: Information behavior models and research paradigm 1 Ellis’ information seeking model Mar. 1

2 Kutlthau’s information search process Feb. 23

3 Bates’ Berrypicking model Feb. 23

4 Affective paradigm in information behavior research Mar. 1

5 Information grounds Mar. 8

6 Everyday life information seeking (ELIS model) Mar. 8

7 Situated actions (L. Suchman) Mar. 22

Section II: Empirical user studies

8 Analysis of public library users’ digital preservation practices Apr. 12

9 Source use by information seekers Apr. 12

10 Understanding social search Mar. 22

11 Challenges and opportunities in using social networks for

health Mar. 29

12 How are we searching the World Wide Web Apr. 5

13 Users’ behavior with faceted OPAC systems Mar. 29

14 The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation

behavior using Google Apr. 5

Section III: Research methods for user studies 15 Interviews Feb. 16

16 Transaction log analysis Feb. 16

The requirements for the presentations are outlined in the following table. For some

topics, suggested materials are provided. You are not required to use these materials in

your presentation. You are also encouraged to use materials other than listed to support

your presentation.

9

Section I: Information behavior models and research paradigm

Presentations are expected to include but are not limited to:

- Describe the model or the paradigm

- Introduce the elements in the model or paradigm

- Introduce one or multiple empirical studies that support the model or the paradigm

- Situations that the model applies

- Merits and limitations

1. Ellis’ information seeking model Suggested readings for the presentation

Ellis, D., D. Cox & K. Hall (1993). A Comparison of the Information Seeking Patterns of Researchers in

the Physical and Social Sciences. Journal of Documentation 49, no. 4: 356-369.

Ellis, D. (1997). Modeling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an

industrial environment. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 384-403.

Meho, L., & Tibbe, H. (2003). Modeling the information-seeking behavior and use of social

scientists: Ellis's study revisited. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 54(6): 570-87.

2. Kutlthau’s Information processing model Suggested readings for the presentation

Kuhlthau, Carol C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. Also available at

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (2005). Kuhlthau’s information search process. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez,

& Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 230-234). Medford, NJ:

Information Today.

3. Bates’ Berrypicking model

4. Affective paradigm in information behavior research Suggested readings for the presentation

Nahl, Diane. (2007). The centrality of the affective in information behavior. In Diane Nahl & Dania Bilal

(Eds.), Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research

and theory (pp. 3-37). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), Ross, Catherine Sheldrick, & Rothbauer, Paulette. (2007). Affective

dimensions of information seeking in the context of reading. In Diane Nahl & Dania Bilal (Eds.),

Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and

theory (pp. 187-195). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

10

5. Information grounds Suggested readings for the presentation

Fisher, K.E. (2005). Information Grounds. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie

(Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 185-190). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

6. Everyday life information seeking (ELIS model) Suggested readings for the presentation

Savolainen, R. (2005). Everyday life information seeking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)

McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of Information Behavior (pp. 143-148). Medford, NJ: Information

Today.

7. Situated actions Suggested readings for the presentation

Suchman, Lucy. (2007). Situated Actions. In L. Suchman. Human-machine Reconfigurations: Plans and

Situated Actions (2nd ed.) (pp.69-84). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Section II: Empirical user studies

Presentations are expected to include but are not limited to:

- Purpose of the study

- Background information (related literature)

- Methods used in the study

- Data analysis

- Results

- Implications

8. Analysis of public library users’ digital preservation practices Reading for the presentation

Copeland, A.J. (2011). Analysis of public library users’ digital preservation practices. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1288-1300.

9. Source use by information seekers Reading for the presentation

Agarwal, N.K., Xu, Y., & Poo, D.C.C. (2011). A context-based investigation into source use by

information seekers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7),

1087-1104.

10. Understanding social search

Recommended reading

Evans, B.M., & Chi, E.H. (2008). Towards a model of understanding social search. In Proceedings of

11

CSCW’08, 485-494.

11. Challenges and opportunities in using social networks for health Reading for the presentation

Newman, M.W., Lauterbach, D., Munson, S.A., Resnick, P., & Morris, M.E. (2011). “It’s not that I don’t

have problems, I’m just not putting them on Facebook”: Challenges and opportunities in using online

social networks for health. In Proceedings of the ACM CSCW, 341-350.

[Recommended to read] Morris, M.E., Consolvo, S., Munson, S., Patrick, K., Tsai, J., & Kramer, A.D.I.

(2011). Facebook for health: Opportunities and challenges for driving behavior change. In

Proceedings of the CHI2011, 443-446.

12. How are we searching the World Wide Web?

Reading for the presentation Jasen, B.J., & Spink, A. (2006). How are we searching the World Wide Web: A comparison of nine search

engine transaction logs. Information Processing and Management, 42, 248-263.

13. Users’ behavior with faceted OPAC systems

Reading for the presentation Kules, B., Capra, R., Banta, M., & Sierra, T. (2009). What do exploratory searchers look at in a faceted

search interface? In Proceedings of JCDL’09, 313-322.

Antelman, K., Lynema, E., & Pace, A.K. (2006). Toward a 21st Centaury Library Catalog. Information

Technology and Libraries, 25(3), 128-139.

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/staff/kaantelm/antelman_lynema_pace.pdf

Suggested readings (about the systems)

NCSU library online catalog: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/

Compare to UT library online catalog: http://www.lib.utexas.edu

14. The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google

Reading for the presentation Lorigo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L., & Gay, G. (2006). The influence of task and

gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google. Information Processing and Management,

42, 1123-1131.

Section III: Research methods for user or usability studies

Presentations are expected to include but are not limited to:

- Introduce the research method, pros and cons,

- How to use the method

- Find a user study (case study) that exemplifies the use of this technique

- Explain how the research methods is implemented in the study

- Find the case study by yourself. If you have any problems, contact the instructor at

yanz@ischool.utexas.edu

12

15. Interviews

16. Transaction log analysis Suggested readings for the presentation

Laura, S., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Transaction logs. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of Social

Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science (pp.166-177). Westport, CT:

Libraries Unlimited.

4. Group projects: User studies

The class will self-select into teams to take on a project. The maximum number of

students in a team is 5.

The purpose of a user study often is to explore a community/group of users’

information needs and information behavior to inform the design or redesign of a

technology or a service. The following is a list of examples of research topics. You are

encouraged to propose a topic that of your interest, discuss the topic with the instructor,

and work on it upon the instructor’s approval.

Examples

Example1

Current use of mobile technologies for book reading People are more and more used to the idea of reading books on mobile devices. In the past

several years, Amazon Kindle, Sony Reader, IPhone, B&N Nook, and Wikireader constantly

appeared in news and technology blogs. You are interested in exploring people’s behavior of

reading books using portable devices and examining whether the current mobile devices

successfully support people’s needs.

Example2

Personal health records In order to design effective personal health records system, you want to study what kind of

records do people keep, how do they store it, how they do they retrieve it when they need

certain information, and what are the major concerns that people have for such a system.

Example3

Academic users’ use of full-text book databases Now, more and more full-text books are available in library databases. You might have

already used electronic books through the UT library. Do you like the service? Do you have

any difficulties in using the system? Does the service support your book reading needs?

Different databases deal with full-text book differently. Do you prefer one over another? It

will be worthwhile to find out how electronic book systems can be designed to better support

academic users.

Example4

Collaborative information searching/seeking Searching for information (eg. medical, music, travel, shopping, a class project) usually is

not an activity performed by one individual person. Most times it was performed collectively

by two or more people. How system can support such collective information searching and

decision making? A user study could inform how people collaborate with each other on

13

information searching tasks so as to inform the design of better information retrieval

systems.

Example5

How do users name files in their personal computer and what strategies

do they use to find files How do general people name files in their personal computer and what strategies do they use

to find files? The newly released Windows 7 greatly improved its search function, which

suggests that searching files on personal computers is still a challenge for operating systems.

This project intends to explore how people name their computer files so as to inform means

for finding the files later. It will also have implications for designing searching mechanisms

for online files storage services.

Following these steps for your project:

1) Propose a research topic, discuss the topic with the instructor, and submit research

questions that you will address in your study to the instructor.

2) Discuss with the instructor what methods you will employ to answer your research

questions and submit a brief description of your research design.

3) Write an IRB application and submit it to the IRB for review

When human subjects are involved, you are required to submit an IRB application

online at: http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humansubjects/forms.html. The

instruction of how to prepare for an IRB application will be given in class.

The grade that your IRB application receives is dependent on whether it is

approved by the University’s review board. You will get a full grade if it is approved

by the end of the semester. Otherwise, the grade will be contingent on how much

work is needed to get it approved.

4) Submit a literature review of related research on your particular topic

Each group will review 20-40 papers (journal papers, conference proceedings,

book chapters, or books) regarding the existing related literature on your topic. The

literature review is expected to be about 2 pages long, 11-12 fonts, single spaced,

excluding the citations. At the end of the literature review, citations should be

provided in APA style (Here is a good reference for APA style:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/).

The literature review will be evaluated from three aspects:

a. Comprehensiveness: whether your review covers the most influential

work on your topic and whether it covers various perspectives from

which the topic was explored.

b. Quality of your writing: whether your review is well structured and easy

to follow.

c. Format of the citations: whether your citations follow the APA style.

5) Collect data

Depending on your research design, your data collection could take place at

different places. If you need to use the Usability Lab on the 5th

floor of UTA, please

schedule the room with the purple shirts in the computer lab on the 1st floor of UTA.

14

6) Analyze the data

7) Write a research paper to report your study

A research paper is expected to have the following components:

a. Introduction to your study

b. Literature review

c. Research method (data collection method and data analysis method)

d. Research results

e. Discussion of the implications of your research results

f. Conclusions

8) Presentations.

Two options are available in presenting your final work:

a. In-class presentation: Each presentation is about 20-25 minutes long. There

will be additional 5 minutes for Q&A. The presentation will be evaluated

using the rubric outlined in Section 5.3.

b. Participating in Spring Open House poster session.

15

7. Schedule & Readings

1. Schedule

Date Subjects

1 Jan. 19 Introduction and syllabus

2 Jan. 26 History of user studies (1): IR systems and system-oriented view Due: Select topic presentation

3 Feb. 2 History of user studies (2): user-oriented view

Guest: Holly Tieu (From IRB)

Due: Complete IRB training & Submit the certificate

4 Feb. 9 Information behavior and information practices Due: Inform the instructor of your research group and research topic

5 Feb. 16 Overview of research methods for user studies

6 Feb. 23 Cognitive perspective to user studies

7 March 1 Research group discussion & Q&A Due: Submit IRB for review

8 March 8 Social perspective to user studies

9 March 15 ** No Class** (Spring break)

10 March 22 Introduction to interaction design

11 March 29 From user studies to system design

12 Apr. 5 System evaluation: usability Due: Literature review

13 Apr. 12 Web 2.0 and information services

Guest:

14 Apr.19 Information service: challenges and opportunities (Guests)

15 Apr. 26 Traded for attending Spring Open House poster presentation

16 May 3 Student presentation: research projects

May 4 Spring Open House (Last day of class)

Due: Final project

16

2. Readings

1. Jan. 19 Introduction and review of syllabus

Required readings

Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (with a new introduction).

New York: Basic Books. Read: Preface, Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4

Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (2002). The social life of information. Boston:

Harvard Business School. Read Acknowledgements, Preface, Introduction, Chapter 1 and

6.

2. Jan. 26 History of user studies (1): IR systems and system-oriented view

Due: Select topic presentation

Required readings

Croft, B., Metzler, D., & Strohman, T. (2009). Search Engines: Information Retrieval in

Practice. Addison Wesley. Chapter 1, 2

Swanson, Don R. (1977). Information retrieval as a trial-and-error process. Library

Quarterly, 47(2):128-148. Read two sections: Summary & Measures of Retrieval

Effectiveness (P.128-136).

Ingwersen, P. & Järvelin, K. (2005) The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking &

Information Retrieval in Context. Springer. Read Chapter 4.1 & 4.2 (P.111-122).

3. Feb.2 History of user studies (2): User-oriented view

Guest: Holly Tieu (IRB)

Due: Complete IRB training & submit the certificate

Required readings

Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Martha

Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (pp. 3-33).

Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Cole, C. (2011). Theory of information needs for information retrieval that connects

information to knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 62(7), 1216-1231.

Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-56.

17

Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913-925.

Morahan-Martin, J.M. (2004). How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health

information: A cross-cultural review. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(5), 497-510.

Recommended readings

Tenopir, Carol, King, Donald W., Boyce, Peter, Grayson, Matt, & Paulson, Keri-Lynn.

(2005). Relying on electronic journals: Reading patterns of astronomers. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(8), 786-802.

Borgman, C. L., Hirsh, S. G., Walter, V. A., & Gallagher, A. L. (1995). Children’s

searching behavior on browsing and keyword online catalogs: The science library catalog

project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(9), 663-684.

Proffitt, M. (2007). How and why of user studies: RLG’s RedLightGreen as a case study.

Journal of Archival Organization, 4(1), 87-110.

Skov, M., & Ingwersen, P. (2008). Exploring information seeking behavior in a digital

museum context. In Proceedings of Information Interaction in Context, 110-115.

Spasojevic, M., & Kindberg, T. (2001). A study of an augmented museum experience.

HP Company Report. Available at: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-

178.pdf

Diaz, J., Griffith, R.A., Ng, J.J., Reinert, S.E., Friedmann, P.D., & Moulton, A.W. (2002).

Patients’ use of the internet for medical information. Journal of General Internal

Medicine, 17(3), 180-185.

4. Feb. 9 Information behavior and information practices

Required readings

Wilson, T.D. (1999). Models in information behavior research. Journal of Documentation,

55(3), 249-270.

Wilson, T.D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-55.

Accessed at: http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol3/v3n2p49-56.pdf

McKenzie, P. J. (2003). A model of information practices in accounts of everyday-life

information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 59(1), 19-44.

The behaviour/practice debate: a discussion prompted by Tom Wilson's review of Reijo

Savolainen's Everyday information practices: a social phenomenological perspective.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2008." (2009). Information Research, 14(2) paper 403.

[Available from 25 May, 2009 at http://InformationR.net/ir/14-2/paper403.html]

Recommended readings

18

Savolainen, R. (2008). Everyday Information Practices: A Social Phenomenological

Perspective. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

5. Feb. 16 Overview of research methods for user studies

Due: Inform the instructor of your research group and research topic

[Student presentation: Interviews]

[Student presentation: Transaction analysis]

Required readings

Wang, Peiling (1999). Methodologies and methods for user behavioral research.

Williams, Martha E., Ed. Annual review of information science and technology. Medford,

NJ: Information Today, pp. 53-99.

Ingwersen, P. & Järvelin, K. (2005) The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking &

Information Retrieval in Context. Springer. Read Chapter 3.2 (P.86-102).

Recommended readings

Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond

human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Read Chapter 7 Data

gathering, and Chapter 8 Data Analysis, interpretation, and presentation

6. Feb. 23 Cognitive perspective to user studies

[Student presentation: Bates’ Berrypicking model]

[Student presentation: Kutlthau’s information search process]

Required readings

Allen, Bryce L. (1991). Cognitive research in information science: implications for

design. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and

Technology (Vol. 26, pp. 3-37). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Belkin, Nicholas J. (2005). Anomalous state of knowledge. In Karen Fisher, Sanda

Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of Information Behavior (pp. 44-

48). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Borgman, Christine L. (1989). All users of information retrieval systems are not created

equal: an exploration into individual differences. Information Process & Management,

25(3), 237-251.

Dillon, A., Richardson, J., & McKnight, C. (1990). Navigation in hypertext: a critical

review of the concept. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.).

Human-computer Interaction - INTERACT'90. North Holland: Amsterdam, 587-592.

19

Recommended readings

Pak, R., Rogers, W.A., & Fisk, A.D. (2006). Spatial ability subfactors and their

influences on a computer-based information search task. Human Factors, 48(1), 154-165.

Graham, J, Zheng, L.Y,, & Gonzalez, C (2006). A cognitive approach to game usability

and design: Mental model development in novice real-time strategy gamers.

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(3): 361-366.

Suchman, Lucy A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated

actions (2nd

ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Read Chapter 5

7. Mar. 1 Discussion session for research projects

Due: Submit IRB for review

[Student presentation: Ellis information seeking model]

[Student presentation: Affective paradigm in information behavior research]

8. Mar. 8 Social perspective to user studies

[Student presentation: Everyday life information seeking (ELIS model)]

[Student presentation: Information Grounds]

Required readings

Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (2002). The social life of information (2nd ed.).

Boston: Harvard Business School. Read Chapter 4 and 5

Suchman, Lucy A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated

actions (2nd

ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Read Chapter 6

Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-

of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization

Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Chatman, E.A. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science, 50(3), 207-217.

Recommended readings

Davenport, Elisabeth, & Hall, Hazel. (2002). Organizational knowledge and

communities of practice. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science

and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 171-227). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Davies, Elisabeth. (2005). Communities of practice. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &

Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 104-107).

Medford, NJ: Information Today.

20

Burnett, G., Besant, M., & Chatman, E.A. (2001). Small worlds: Normative behavior in

virtual communities and feminist bookselling. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 536-547.

Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. Mar. 15 ** No Class ** (Spring break)

10. Mar. 22 Introduction to interaction design

[Student presentation: Situated actions]

[Student presentation: Understanding social search]

Required readings

Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond

human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Read Chapter 1 What is

interaction design, Chapter 2 Understanding and conceptualizing interaction, and Chapter

6 Interfaces and interactions

Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (with a new introduction).

New York: Basic Books. Read Chapter 1

Robins, D. (2000). Interactive information retrieval: Context and basic notions.

Information Science, 3(2).

11. Mar. 29 From user studies to system design

[Student presentation: Challenges and opportunities in using social networks for

health]

[Student presentation: Users’ behavior with faceted OPAC systems]

Required readings

Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond

human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Read Chapter 9 The process

of interaction design and Chapter 10 Identifying needs and establishing requirements

Marchionini, Gary, & Komlodi, Anita. (1998). Design of interfaces for information

seeking. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology

(Vol. 33, pp. 89-120). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Hearst, Marti (1999). Interface Support for the Search Process. Accessible at:

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/irbook/10/node9.html

Recommended readings

21

Shneiderman, B. (1997). Designing information-abundant web sites: issues and

recommendations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 5-29.

Larson, K., & Czerwinski, M. (1998). Web page design: implications of memory,

structure and scent for information retrieval. Proceeding of Computer-Human Interaction

Conference 1998, 18-23.

Suchman, Lucy A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions

(2nd

ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Read Chapter 9

12. Apr. 5 System evaluation: usability

[Student presentation: The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation

behavior using Google]

[Student presentation: How are we searching the World Wide Web]

Required readings

Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond

human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Read Chapter 12

Introducing evaluation

Kushniruk, A. (2002). Evaluation in the design of health information systems: application

of approaches emerging from usability engineering. Computers in Biology and Medicine,

32, 141-149.

Thomas, P., & Macredie, R.D. (2002). Introduction to the new usability. ACM

Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9(2), 69-73.

Schweikardt, E. (2009). User centered is off center. Interaction, May + Jun, 12-15.

Recommended reading

Scott, K.M. (2009). Is usability obsolete? Interaction, May + Jun, 6-11.

Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing,

and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann.

Butler, K.A. (1996). Usability engineering turns 10. Interactions, January, 59-75.

13. Apr. 12 Web 2.0 and information services

[Student presentation: Analysis of public library users’ digital preservation

practices]

[Student presentation: Source use by information seekers]

22

Guest speaker:

Required readings

Maness, J. (2006). "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries".

Webology, 3 (2), Article 25. Available at: http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html

Marty. P.F. (2006). Meeting user needs in the modern museum: Profiles of the new

museum information professional. Library & Information Science Research, 28, 128-144.

Recommended readings

Hayman, S., & Lothian, N. (2007). Taxonomy Directed Folksonomies: Integrating user

tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks. World Library

and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, 19-23 August

2007, Durban, South Africa. Available at: http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/papers/157-

Hayman_Lothian-en.pdf

National Library of Australia (2007). Web 2.0 and its potential for the library community.

http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/meetings/web2prog.html (Note: a collection of

presentations on this subject)

14. Apr. 19 Information service: challenges and opportunities

Guest speaker:

Due: Literature review

15. Apr. 26 Students’ presentation of the research projects

16. May. 3 Students’ presentation of the research projects (Traded for attending

Spring Open House poster presentation)

May 4 Spring Open House

Due: Final reports