Dico’s Guidelines
Emanuel Felipe Duarte
September 5, 2015
Introduction 2
Dico’s Guidelines 4
1 Users should be able to reformulate their query at any time in an easy
way 5
2 Advanced search features must be present in the main search page 7 3 Users should be able to start their search in a conventional interface 9 4 Advanced search features should complement information when appli-
cable 11
5 The interface should assist users to understand concepts and relation-
ships present in the results 13
6 Advanced search features must be presented in a manner that does not
intimidate users 15
7 Users should be able to identify and manage advanced search features
easily in the current query 17
8 The interface should communicate technical information of advanced search features in a manner that makes sense to users 19
References 21
Introduction
Dico [5] is a conceptual model to support the design and evaluation of advanced search features for Exploratory Search. It is composed by three principles:
1. context;
2. presence; and 3. simplicity.
By addressing one or more of these principles, Dico has eight guidelines designed to promote the usage of advanced search features. As illustrated in Figure 1, Dico can be applied to any query-response paradigm search engine, such as Google1, Bing2, Google Scholar3 and Springer Link4, promoting the creation of Exploratory Search tools that favour the use of advanced search features.
The main difference between Dico’s guidelines and other examples of design recommendations, such as Nielsen’s [11] heuristics or Wilson’s [16] search user interface design recommendations, is the focus on usage promotion of advanced search features during Exploratory Search activities, an objective that may not be achieved without specific design recommendations such as Dico’s guidelines.
Dico
Context Presence Simplicity Search Engines
Examples: Google, Bing or Google
Scholar
Dico’s Instances Exploratory Search tools that promote the use of advanced
search features Information Seeking
Exploratory Search Human-Computer Interaction
Guidelines
Figure 1: Illustration of Dico’s composition and its application.
1http://www.google.com/
2http://bing.com/
3http://scholar.google.com/
4http://link.springer.com/
Duarte, E., Oliveira, Edson, J., Cˆogo, F., and Pereira, R.Dico: A conceptual model to support the design and evaluation of advanced search features for exploratory search. In Human- Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015, J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, and M. Winckler, Eds., vol. 9299 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Pub- lishing, 2015, pp. 87–104
The paper is available at:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-22723-8_8
Dico’s Guidelines
Users should be able to reformulate their query at any time in an easy way
1.1 Description
The search user interface should always allow users to reformulate their query easily according to their evolving state of knowledge on the subject. The query reformulation can be in the format of modification, refinement, restriction, or expansion, and to do so the search field and the current query must always be available to users.
1.2 Theoretical Foundation
As evidenced by Bates [1], Marchionini [8] and Blandford and Attfield [2], users go through an iterative process during a search. Among other aspects, this process is characterized by query reformulation according to the new acquired knowledge. Therefore, it is critical the interface does not prevent or make it difficult for users to reformulate queries, because this is a recurring step during Exploratory Search activities. From the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective, this guideline can be related to Nielsen’s third heuristic “User con- trol and freedom”, described by the author as “Users often choose system func- tions by mistake and will need a clearly marked ‘emergency exit’ to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.” Finally, considering the advanced search perspective, freedom and easiness to submit new queries can be incentives for users to explore the provided advanced search features.
1.3 Category
Context, presence and simplicity.
1.4 Example
The search results page of the Brazilian e-commerce Submarino1, illustrated in Fig. 1.1 for the query “seo”, makes use of features such as breadcrumbs, faceted navigation and visual highlight of the found terms. However, there are problems considering the scope of this guideline. Although the search field remains present on the Web page, it appears without the current query filled in, making it difficult to reformulate in case users wish to modify only a part of the query. The interface would be in compliance with the guideline if the search field remained filled after submitting a query.
Figure 1.1: Guideline #1 example: lack of current query on the search field in the search results page ofSubmarino. Accessed 01 August 2014.
1http://www.submarino.com.br/
Advanced search features must be present in the main search page
2.1 Description
Advanced search features should not be limited to the fields of a separate and specific page, such features should be included in the main search page which users are already used to operate. More specifically, advanced search features should be included in the search results page, because it is there where they will possibly be more useful.
2.2 Theoretical Foundation
Both Morville and Callender [10], Wilson [16] and Russel-Rose and Tate [13]
argue that positioning advanced search features in a separate interface of rel- atively difficult access is a contributing factor to the low utilization of these features. From an HCI perspective, this guideline can be related to Nielsen’s [11] “Recognition rather than recall” heuristic, described by the author as “Min- imize the user’s memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible.
The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dia- logue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.” Still under an HCI perspective, Weinschenk [15] describes how memory usage is demanding to the human being. Therefore, it is plausible to assume users may have great difficulty in recalling the existence of advanced search and its features, unless the recollection is replaced by some form of recognition in the interface itself.
2.3 Category
Context and presence.
2.4 Example
When users place the cursor over a result on the search results page of Duck- DuckGo1, illustrated in Figure 2.1, it is showed to them the option to get more results from within the same domain of the selected result. This feature makes use of the site filter, and is in compliance with guideline by being present directly on the search page, instead of being hidden in a separate, specific page.
Figure 2.1: Guideline #2 example: advanced search feature present directly on DuckDuckGo’s search results page. Accessed 01 August 2014.
1http://duckduckgo.com/
Users should be able to start their search in a conventional interface
3.1 Description
To take advantage of advanced search features offered by the search engine, users should not be required to access an unfamiliar and possibly intimidating page. They should be able to start their search in a conventional search user interface they are already used to operate (e.g., the default home page of the selected search engine).
3.2 Theoretical Foundation
According to Morville and Callender [10] and Russel-Rose and Tate [13], searches have a context and a natural flow. To displace users from their context and force them to take an unnatural flow to use advanced search features, such as accessing a separate advanced search page to initiate their search activity, is a contributing factor to the low usage of these features. From an HCI perspec- tive, this guideline can be related to Nielsen’s [11] “Consistency and standards”
heuristic, described by the author as “Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.” As Dico promotes the rethinking of search engine functionality, it is also important to respect the approached search engine conventions, such as allowing users to start their search in the same way as before.
3.3 Category
Simplicity.
3.4 Example
Google’s1 home page, illustrated in Figure 3.1, is easily recognized by its min- imalist design to which their users are already habituated. To add advanced search features on this page in particular would go against the guideline, as it would lead to the risk of making the home page unrecognizable and intimidating to users. There is also the hypothesis that these features, when placed on the home page, may not yet be useful for users. These features are more likely to be used only after the search activity is already started and users are already interacting with the results and building new knowledge on a particular subject.
Figure 3.1: Guideline #3 example: minimalist design on Google’s home page.
Accessed 01 August 2014.
1http://www.google.com/
Advanced search features should complement
information when applicable
4.1 Description
When filters and operators relate to the presented information, interaction ele- ments for advanced search features should be inserted in the search user interface next to the information or even contained in it. Such elements are intended to allow users to directly use the information of their interest to formulate and submit new queries without being moved from their context.
4.2 Theoretical Foundation
As described in Pirolli’s [12] Information Foraging theory, users explore infor- mation sources led by indicators of the found information’s essence, essence that Chi et al. [3] describe as information scent. From an HCI perspective, Wein- schenk [15] argues how humans tend to associate that nearby objects are related to each other. Therefore, it should be considered that users may be interested in several pieces of information present on the search results page, such as terms in the title, snippet, domain or any other available metadata. It may be helpful for users to interact with this information to guide their search according to evolving interests and new information discovered.
4.3 Category
Context and presence.
4.4 Example
At the search results page of IEEE Xplore Digital Library1, illustrated in Figure 4.1, authors names are displayed just below the title of each result. Because author name is one of the filtering options, clicking on a name submits a new query. In the case of the figure, clicking on the name “White, R.” submits the query"Authors": "White, R.". One problem in this example is the fact that the new query does not preserve the terms of the original query. Also, the guideline could be completely met if other useful results information, such as year of publication and publisher, were also interactive.
Figure 4.1: Guideline #4 example: advanced search feature complementing results information on IEEE Xplore Digital Library. Accessed 01 August 2014.
1http://ieee.org/ieeexplore
The interface should assist users to understand
concepts and relationships present in the results
5.1 Description
Users should be assisted in forming a mental model of the researched topic, because this is an important step in the construction of knowledge in an Ex- ploratory Search activity. The interface can provide a visual representation of the information space in which the main concepts and how they relate to the retrieved documents can be highlighted. Such relationships, for example, may be interactive so that users make further queries with related advanced search features.
5.2 Theoretical Foundation
Information Seeking models, such as Marchionini’s stages [8] and Bate’s Berryp- icking [1], describe that users interact with several information sources to grad- ually build knowledge about a particular subject. From an HCI perspective, Weinschenk [15] argues how humans create mental models of how things work during the effort to understand them, a theory compatible with the “image”
or “model” of a domain that, according to Dervin [4], users develop during the interaction with the interface. Keeping in mind the large amount of informa- tion available on the World Wide Web (Web), and the cognitive overload that it can cause, the interface should assist users in the process of Sensemaking, specially to overcome initial confusion and uncertainty feelings, as described by Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process [7].
5.3 Category
Context, and simplicity.
5.4 Example
The Semantic Wonder Cloud1, an experimental tool proposed by Mirizziet al.
[9] and illustrated in Figure 5.1, is inspired by the discontinued Google Wonder Wheel to propose an interface where users can select a concept and navigate adjacently to related concepts. If used in conjunction with the returned results of a search, this form of representation has the potential to help users understand the searched topic and formulate new queries based on the acquired knowledge, therefore being in compliance with the guideline.
Figure 5.1: Guideline #5 example: concepts and their relations on Semantic Wonder Cloud. Accessed 01 August 2014.
1http://sisinflab.poliba.it/semantic-wonder-cloud/index/
Advanced search features must be presented in a manner that does not intimidate users
6.1 Description
The search user interface should not have the format of a page with several fields to be filled or complex controls, it is necessary to provide search features that are as simples as possible according to the context. The advanced search features should be presented with simple controls, and the presentation of these features must be diluted along the search activity, with different features presented at different times as they become useful for a given context.
6.2 Theoretical Foundation
According to Wilson [16], currently one of the ways to make use of advanced search is to access an advanced search page separated from the conventional search user interface. This advanced search page contains several fields to be filled, but little information about how to fill them, and is also described by Morville and Callender [10] as being quite intimidating to users. From an HCI perspective, this guideline can be related to Nielsen’s [11] “Aesthetic and min- imalist design” heuristic, described by the author as “Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.” Considering that interface features compete with each other for users’ attention, a feature that is not useful at a given time should not be prominent in the interface.
6.3 Category
Presence and simplicity.
6.4 Example
An approach to make the user interface less intimidating is, instead of displaying a page with a field for each filter and available operator, provide steps with just a few features each. New features should be presented out iteratively as they become useful, given the context, while users progress gradually in their Ex- ploratory Search activity. Therefore, the cognitive load required to understand and make use of each feature is distributed over several interactions. Another plausible approach is to explore new forms of interaction, such as done by Wol- framAlpha1, illustrated in Figure 6.1, which is in compliance with the guideline by using Natural Language Processing (NLP) so that users do not need to mem- orize commands or elaborate a terms-based query (more easily understood by an Information Retrieval (IR) system than by a human being.) In WolframAl- pha, the query can be submitted in a relatively natural way to the users, such as in a question format, and the system assumes the responsibility of processing it to then return what it considers to be the most appropriate results.
Figure 6.1: Guideline #6 example: answer for a natural language query in WolframAlpha. Accessed 01 August 2014.
1http://www.wolframalpha.com/
Users should be able to identify and manage
advanced search features easily in the current query
7.1 Description
The query must be processed so the features can be identified and presented in a format that highlights them individually. Presenting features individually also facilitates its management, like removing or editing a specific feature present in the query. When presented individually, the features may also receive an individual explanation in a language that makes sense to users, assisting them to associate syntax and functionality.
7.2 Theoretical Foundation
As argued by Bates [1], Marchionini [8] and Blandford and Attfield [2], the search activity is characterized by its iterative nature, which, in a simplified way, involves formulating a query, examining the results and reformulating the query, restarting the cycle. Because the query reformulation may involve the gradual addition of new filters and operators, the query can become relatively extensive and complex. Eventually, users may find it difficult to identify all advanced search features present in the query. From an HCI perspective, this guideline can be related to Nielsen’s [11] “Visibility of system status” heuristic, described by the author as “The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.”
If advanced search features are individually and prominently displayed, it will be easier for users to stay informed about the system status and manage the elements present in the query.
7.3 Category
Presence and simplicity.
7.4 Example
In the Flamenco project, illustrated in Figure 7.1, all currently active filters are individually highlighted just above the search results, where users can easily see them. Each filter also has a remove button for removing it from the query.
Even though Web search engines can not extract facets from all documents as effectively as in faceted navigation, the idea of individually displaying the active query filters remains applicable as a means to comply the guideline. It can be done by simply processing the current query to extract its elements.
Figure 7.1: Guideline #7 example: active facets in Flamenco’s search results page. Accessed 01 August 2014.
The interface should communicate technical information of advanced
search features in a manner that makes sense to users
8.1 Description
Users must be able to understand the logical operation of advanced search fea- tures. For this, the visual and verbal communication used to display the features and related technical information must have a simple language that makes sense to users.
8.2 Theoretical Foundation
According to Hearst [6] and Morville and Callender [10], many users show diffi- culty in understanding the logical operation of advanced search features. From an HCI perspective, this guideline can be related to Nielsen’s [11] “Match be- tween system and the real world” heuristic, described by the author as “The sys- tem should speak the users’ language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.” The guideline can also be related to the concept of metacommunication from Semiotic Engineer- ing, in which Souza and Leit˜ao [14] describe that the designer of an application communicates with users through the interface. For the logical operation of advanced search features to be understood by users, the operation should be communicated to users in a manner that makes sense for them. To achieve this the language must be simple, and it should be assumed that not all people are proficient in concepts like logical operators and syntax of computer commands.
8.3 Category
Context and simplicity.
8.4 Example
Considering the filetypefilter present in Web search engines, users may not be familiar with a particular file extension, some users may not even be familiar with the concept that the file extension determines the program used to open that file. Therefore, the interface should inform what program is commonly used to open files with a certain extension (e.g. thedocx file extension can be communicated to users as “Microsoft Word file”). Google Images, illustrated in Figure 8.1, uses another abstraction example allowing users to choose the size of returned images according to a subjective scale (“large”, “medium” and
“icon”), therefore complying with the guideline. For further control, precise size values in pixels can also be specified.
Figure 8.1: Guideline #8 example: advanced search feature in Google Images presented in a manner that makes sense to users. Accessed 01 August 2014.
[1] Bates, M. J. The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Information Review 13, 5 (1989), 407–424.
[2] Blandford, A., and Attfield, S. Interacting with information. Syn- thesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 3, 1 (2010), 1–99.
[3] Chi, E. H., Pirolli, P., Chen, K., and Pitkow, J. Using information scent to model user information needs and actions and the web. InProceed- ings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2001), CHI ’01, ACM, pp. 490–497.
[4] Dervin, B. An Overview of Sense-making Research: Concepts, Methods, and Results to Date. Sense-making packet. The Author, 1983.
[5] Duarte, E., Oliveira, Edson, J., Cˆogo, F., and Pereira, R.
Dico: A conceptual model to support the design and evaluation of ad- vanced search features for exploratory search. InHuman-Computer Inter- action – INTERACT 2015, J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, and M. Winckler, Eds., vol. 9299 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 87–104.
[6] Hearst, M. A.Search User Interfaces. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[7] Kuhlthau, C. C. Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42, 5 (1991), 361–371.
[8] Marchionini, G. Information Seeking in Electronic Environments.
Cambridge Series on Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[9] Mirizzi, R., Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., and Di Sciascio, E.Semantic wonder cloud: Exploratory search in dbpedia. In Current Trends in Web Engineering, F. Daniel and F. Facca, Eds., vol. 6385 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 138–149.
[10] Morville, P., and Callender, J. Search Patterns. O’Reilly Media, 2010.
[11] Nielsen, J.Usability Engineering. Interactive technologies. Morgan Kauf- mann, 1993.
[12] Pirolli, P. Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with In- formation. Human Technology Interaction Series. Oxford University Press, USA, 2009.
[13] Russell-Rose, T., and Tate, T. Designing the Search Experience: The Information Architecture of Discovery. Morgan Kaufmann, 2013.
[14] Souza, C. S. d., and Leit˜ao, C. F. Semiotic engineering methods for scientific research in hci.Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informat- ics 2, 1 (2009), 1–122.
[15] Weinschenk, S.100 Things Every Designer Needs to Know About People, 1st ed. New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011.
[16] Wilson, M. L. Search user interface design. Synthesis Lectures on Infor- mation Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 3, 3 (2011), 1–143.
