skip to main content
10.1145/1216295.1216319acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

What do people recall about their documents?: implications for desktop search tools

Published:28 January 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

This study aims at finding out which attributes people actually recall about their own documents (electronic and paper), and what are the characteristics of their recall, in order to provide recommendations on how to improve tools allowing users to retrieve their electronic files more effectively and more easily. An experiment was conducted with fourteen participants at their workplace. They were asked first to recall features about one (or several) of their own work documents, and secondly to retrieve these documents. The difficulties encountered by the participants in retrieving their electronic documents support the need for better retrieval tools. More specifically, results of the recall task indicate which attributes are candidates for facilitating file retrieval and how search tools should use these attributes.

References

  1. Adar, E., Kargar, D., and Stein. L. A. (1999). Haystack: per-user information environments. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on Information and knowledge management, 413--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Barreau, D. and Nardi, B. (1995). Finding and Reminding: File Organization from the Desktop. SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(3), 39--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bellotti, V., Ducheneaut, N., Howard, M., Smith, I., and Neuwirth, C. (2002). Innovation in extremis: evolving an application for the critical work of email and information management. In Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems, 181--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Boardman, R. (2004). Improving Tool Support for Personal Information Management. PhD Dissertation. Imperial College, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cutrell, E., Dumais, S. T., and Teevan, J. (2006). Searching to eliminate personal information management. Communications of the ACM, 49(1), 58--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Czerwinski, M., van Dantzich, M., Robertson, G. G., and Hoffman, H. (1999). The contribution of thumbnail image, mouse-over text and spatial location memory to web page retrieval in 3D. In Proceedings of Interact '99, 163--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dourish, P., Edwards, W. K., LaMarca, A., and Salisbury M. (1999). Presto: an experimental architecture for fluid interactive document spaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 6(2), 133--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dumais, S. T., Cutrell, E., Cadiz, J. J., Jancke, G., Sarin, R., and Robbins, D. C. (2003). Stuff I've Seen: A system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In Proceedings of SIGIR'03, 72--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dumais, S. T. and Jones W. P. (1985). A comparison of symbolic and spatial filing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 127--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Fertig, S., Freeman, E., and Gelernter, D. (1996). "Finding and reminding" reconsidered. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28(1), 66--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Freeman, E. and Gelernter D. (1996). Lifestreams: a storage model for personal data. ACM SIGMOD Record, 25(1), 80--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Fox, P. W., Blick, K. A., and Bilodeau, E. A. (1964). Stimulation and prediction of verbal recall and misrecall. Journal of experimental psychology, 68, 321--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Gonçalves, D. and Jorge, J. A. (2004). Describing documents: what can users tell us? In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 247--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jones, W. P. and Dumais, S. T. (1986). The Spatial Metaphor for User Interfaces: Experimental Tests of Reference by Location versus Name. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(1), 42--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jones, W. P., Dumais, S., and Bruce H. (2002). Once found, what next?: A study of "keeping" behaviors in the personal use of web information. In Proceedings of ASIST 2002, 391--402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kaptelinin, V. (2003). Umea: Translating interaction histories into project contexts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 353--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Lansdale, M. W. (1988). The psychology of personal information management. Applied Ergonomics, 19(1), 55--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Lansdale, M. W. (1991). Remembering about documents: memory for appearance, format, and location. Ergonomics, 34(8), 1161--1178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lansdale, M. W., Simpson, M., and Stroud, T. R. M. (1990). A Comparison of Words and Icons as External Memory Aids in an Information Retrieval Task. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 9(2), 111--131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Marsden, G. and Cairns, D. E. (2003). Improving the Usability of the Hierarchical File System, Proceedings of SAICSIT 2003, 122--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ravasio, P., Schär, S. G., and Krueger, H. (2004). In pursuit of desktop evolution: User problems and practices with modern desktop systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11(2), 156--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: OUP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tulving, E., and Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381--391.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Tulving E., and Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352--373.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., and Nardi, B. A. (2000). Let's stop pushing the envelope and start addressing it: a reference task agenda for HCI. Human Computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 75--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. What do people recall about their documents?: implications for desktop search tools

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        IUI '07: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces
        January 2007
        388 pages
        ISBN:1595934812
        DOI:10.1145/1216295

        Copyright © 2007 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 28 January 2007

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader