Skimming comprehension in two online document presentation environments
Author:
Lowrance Nathan,Lea Moulaison Heather
Abstract
Purpose
– Readability applications are the software products designed to make online text more readable. Using information foraging theory as a framework, the purpose of this paper is to study the extent, if at all, using a readability application improves skimming comprehension in a low-clutter online environment. It also seeks to identify the perceived benefits or effects of using a readability application for skimming comprehension.
Design/methodology/approach
– Ten participants skimmed two articles each, one in a low-clutter online document presentation environment, the other using an online readability application, as a timed, information foraging exercise. After reading each article, respondents answered true/false comprehension questions and follow up questions.
Findings
– There was little difference in the comprehension of respondents after skimming in the two online documentation presentation environments. The readability environment was the preferred environment.
Practical implications
– This study suggests that since participants claimed to prefer the text presentation of the readability application interface, interface designers may wish to create library interfaces for information seeking that follow the readability application format. Because some of the participants found themselves reading rather than skimming when using the readability application, readability for tasks other than skimming may be enhanced.
Originality/value
– This is a practical study investigating an existing online readability application and its effects on an existing online reading environment as they pertain to information seeking behavior in general and to information foraging in particular.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems
Reference54 articles.
1. Apple
(2012), “Safari 6 (OS X Mountain Lion): view articles with Reader”, 14 August, available at: URL: http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11936 (accessed August 14, 2012). 2. Ball, R.
and
Hourcade, J.
(2011), “Rethinking reading for age from paper and computers”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1066-1082. 3. Bates, M.
(1989), “The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface”, Online Review, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 407-424. 4. Bernard, M.
,
Fernandez, M.
and
Hull, S.
(2002), “The effects of line length on children and adults’ online reading performance”, Usability News, Vol. 4 No. 2, available at: http://usabilitynews.org/the-effects-of-line-length-on-children-and-adults-online-reading-performance/ (accessed August 27, 2014). 5. Bernard, M.
,
Lida, B.
,
Riley, S.
,
Hackler, T.
and
Janzen, K.
(2002), “A comparison of popular online fonts: which size and type is best”, Usability News, Vol. 4 No. 1, available at: www.tbook.it/download/Usability_News%20.pdf (accessed August 27, 2014).
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. References;Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior;2016-04-25 2. Reviewing, Critiquing, Concluding;Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior;2016-04-25 3. Research by Roles and Contexts;Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior;2016-04-25 4. Research Design, Methodology, and Methods;Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior;2016-04-25 5. Metatheories, Theories, and Paradigms;Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior;2016-04-25
|
|