© 2005, contextualanalysis, llc building a faceted classification ia summit redux - san francisco...
TRANSCRIPT
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Building a FacetedClassification
IA Summit Redux -San Francisco
Fred Leise, Sarah A. Rice, Amy J. Warner
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
The Project
• Global chemical company
• Customer-facing web site redesign
• Client had completed extensive user research on audience segments, task analysis
• Client determined they needed a faceted classification for information access by disparate audience segments
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
The 3 Librarians
Fred LeiseContextualAnalysis, LLC; IA with specialty in metadata and controlled vocabularies, faceted classifications
Amy J. Warnerlexonomy.com; IA with specialty in metadata and controlled vocabularies; former academic at UM-SI
Sarah A. RiceSeneb Consulting; IA with specialty in user research, metadata/CV development.
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Project Team
Client Team• Key stakeholder as project manager
• Stakeholder from IT
• Stakeholder from KM group/subject expert
Geographically Distributed
• UK
• Midwest
• California
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Our Engagement with Client
We were asked to:
• Build upon AP research
• Develop a content model (metadata schema) and appropriate controlled vocabularies (CVs)
• Include multiple sessions of user research
• Offer solutions for global website to be implemented in four different languages
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Methodology: Overview
Prior Research Implement
Mental Model & Audience Analysis
In-depth InterviewsOpen Card Sort
Closed Card Sort
Content AuditGap Analysis
Content AnalysisExisting Facets
Gather Terms(Internal and External)
Top-Down Approach
Bottom-Up Approach
CVDevelopment
FacetDevelopment
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Mental Model/Audience Analysis
What We Found
Different user segments used the web site differently, had different information needs
• Segment 1 developed new products and looked for new ideas
• Segment 2 identified and procured products
• Segment 3 used products
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Methodology: Overview
Prior Research Implement
Mental Model & Audience Analysis
In-depth InterviewsOpen Card Sort
Closed Card Sort
Content AuditGap Analysis
Content AnalysisExisting Facets
Gather Terms(Internal and External)
Top-Down Approach
Bottom-Up Approach
FacetDevelopment
CVDevelopment
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
In-Depth Interviews
What We Wanted• Discover user’s information-seeking behavior
– When did they look for information?
– Where did they look?
– What did they look for?
– When did they stop looking?
– Did different cultures have different information-seeking behavior?
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
In-Depth Interviews
What We Did
• One-hour phone interviews
• Two team participants
• Taped conversations, made simultaneous transcriptions
• Studied and analyzed transcripts
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
In-Depth Interviews
What We Found
• How users searched (potential facets)
• Search terminology (potential vocabulary terms)
• No cultural differences
• Differing audience segments had different information needs
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Methodology: Overview
Prior Research Implement
Mental Model & Audience Analysis
In-depth InterviewsOpen Card Sort
Closed Card Sort
Content AuditGap Analysis
Content AnalysisExisting Facets
Gather Terms(Internal and External)
Top-Down Approach
Bottom-Up Approach
FacetDevelopment
CVDevelopment
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Content Analysis
What We Wanted• What facets are in current content?
What We Did• Gathered content types
• Performed detailed analysis
• Identified possible facets
What We Found• Multiple facets having significant overlap with facets
from user research
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Preliminary Facet List
What We Did
• Developed exhaustive facet list
• Prioritized list
• Developed list of facets to be develop, those to be developed later
• Identified facet characteristics
• Identified appropriate facets for testing
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
FACET NAME DEFINITION
VOCAB. TYPE
OPEN/ CLOSED
REPEAT-ABLE?
REQUIRED?
MANUAL/ AUTO. TAGGING?
SOURCE
Author
The name of the person or persons that produced the document. flat list Open Yes Yes Manual Author
Country
The places where products are sold and used.
Hierarchy Closed Yes Yes Manual Author
Document Type
Language
Product Name
Subject
Target Audience
Document Title
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Methodology: Overview
Prior Research Implement
Mental Model & Audience Analysis
In-depth InterviewsOpen Card Sort
Closed Card Sort
Content AuditGap Analysis
Content AnalysisExisting Facets
Gather Terms(Internal and External)
Top-Down Approach
Bottom-Up Approach
FacetDevelopment
CVDevelopment
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Open Card Sorting
What We Wanted
• Validate preliminary facet list
• Identify any unclear facets
• Identify any possible missing facets
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Open Card Sorting
What We Did• Client identified and scheduled users• Emailed users instructions and terms 24 hours in
advance
• Conducted test via conference call and WebEx
• Used two team members for each call• Analyzed card sort results
– Top-down cluster analysis by hand– Bottom-up term co-occurrence analysis by hand– Dendrite diagram analysis using EZSort
Dendrite Diagram
Term 1
Term 2
Term 3
Term 4
Term 5
Term 6
Term 7
Term 8
Term 9
Term 10
Term 11
Term 12
Term 13
Term 14
Term 15
Term 16
Term 17
Term 18
Term 19
Term 20
Term 21
Term 22
Term 23
Term 24
Term 25
Term 26
Term 27
Term 28
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Open Card Sorting
What We Found
• Several facets not easily distinguished, needed to be combined
• Audience role did not affect results
• In general, facet model was on target
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Methodology: Overview
Prior Research Implement
Mental Model & Audience Analysis
In-depth InterviewsOpen Card Sort
Closed Card Sort
Content AuditGap Analysis
Content AnalysisExisting Facets
Gather Terms(Internal and External)
Top-Down Approach
Bottom-Up Approach
FacetDevelopment
CVDevelopment
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Gather Terms
What We Wanted
• Develop complete CVs for all appropriate facets
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Gather Terms
What We Did
• Gathered terms from:– user interviews– client’s existing term lists– client’s website– competitors’ websites
• Identified CVs needing client input
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Gather Terms
What We Found
• Many CVs were completed relatively easily
• A few CVs needed extensive development
• One large CV could only be completed by client
CountryAfrica . Algeria (People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria) (DZA) . Angola (Republic of Angola) (AGO) . Belize (BLZ) . . . .Americas . Argentina (Argentine Republic) (ARG) . Aruba (ABW) . Bahamas (Commonwealth of the Bahamas) (BHS) . . . .Asia . Australia (Commonwealth of Australia) (AUS) . Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani Republic) (AZE) . Bangladesh (People’s Republic of Bangladesh) (BGD) . . . .Europe . Albania (Republic of Albania) (ALB) . Andorra (Principality of Andorra) (AND) . … . Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina) (BIH)
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Methodology: Overview
Prior Research Implement
Mental Model & Audience Analysis
In-depth InterviewsOpen Card Sort
Closed Card Sort
Content AuditGap Analysis
Content AnalysisExisting Facets
Gather Terms(Internal and External)
Top-Down Approach
Bottom-Up Approach
FacetDevelopment
CVDevelopment
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Closed Card Sorting
What We Wanted
• Validate facet labels
• Validate assignment of terms to main facets
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Closed Card Sorting
What We Did
• Client identified and scheduled users for testing
• Emailed users instructions and term list 24 hours in advance
• Conducted test via conference call and WebEx
• Used two team participants
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Closed Card Sorting
What We Did
• Analyzed results using:– Top-down cluster analysis by hand– Bottom-up term co-occurrence analysis by
hand– Dendrite diagrams produced by EZSort
• Reviewed preferences for facet labels
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Closed Card Sorting
What We Found
• Users understood facet labels and could sort terms accordingly
• A few facet labels needed to be revised
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Recommendations for Implementation
What We Want• Understand how faceted classification will be used in browsing
• Understand how faceted classification will be used in searching
• Develop maintenance plan for CVsWhat We Did• Presented findings, CVs and wireframes to various stakeholder
groups within company• Developed list of best practices for implementation and
maintenance• Suggested high level roadmap for implementation, to start
immediately• Provided recommendations for tool selection, including criteria
for use and experience with various tools.
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Major Findings
• Audience type makes a difference in which facets they choose to use to search for information
• No cultural differences in classifying and labeling terms, at least in this application
• Users’ facet labels differed but meaning of labels tended to be the same
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Lessons Learned
• Need to begin recruiting for testing well in advance
• Pretesting important
• User testing took two weeks rather than one because of scheduling complexities
• Having multiple team members enhanced overall results
• Cooperative client ensured project success
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Deliverables List
• Initial presentation to client’s core audience (about 40 individuals)
• Screeners and questionnaires for all user testing sessions
• User research report
• User interview transcripts
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Deliverables List
• Content analysis spreadsheet
• Content model testing report
• Preliminary and revised facet list
• Controlled vocabularies spreadsheet
• Final report and presentations
• Project tracking spreadsheet
© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC
Contact Information
• Fred [email protected]
• Amy J. [email protected]
• Sarah A. [email protected]