© 2005, contextualanalysis, llc building a faceted classification ia summit redux - san francisco...

Building a FacetedClassification

IA Summit Redux -San Francisco

Fred Leise, Sarah A. Rice, Amy J. Warner

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

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.

Project Team

Client Team• Key stakeholder as project manager

• Stakeholder from IT

• Stakeholder from KM group/subject expert

Geographically Distributed

• UK

• Midwest

• California

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

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

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

Closed Card Sort

Top-Down Approach

Bottom-Up Approach

FacetDevelopment

CVDevelopment

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?

In-Depth Interviews

What We Did

• One-hour phone interviews

• Two team participants

• Taped conversations, made simultaneous transcriptions

• Studied and analyzed transcripts

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

Closed Card Sort

Top-Down Approach

Bottom-Up Approach

FacetDevelopment

CVDevelopment

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

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

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

Closed Card Sort

Top-Down Approach

Bottom-Up Approach

FacetDevelopment

CVDevelopment

Open Card Sorting

What We Wanted

• Validate preliminary facet list

• Identify any unclear facets

• Identify any possible missing facets

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

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

Closed Card Sort

Top-Down Approach

Bottom-Up Approach

FacetDevelopment

CVDevelopment

Gather Terms

What We Wanted

• Develop complete CVs for all appropriate facets

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

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)

Closed Card Sort

Top-Down Approach

Bottom-Up Approach

FacetDevelopment

CVDevelopment

Closed Card Sorting

What We Wanted

• Validate facet labels

• Validate assignment of terms to main facets

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

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

Closed Card Sorting

What We Found

• Users understood facet labels and could sort terms accordingly

• A few facet labels needed to be revised

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.

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

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

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

Deliverables List

• Content analysis spreadsheet

• Content model testing report

• Preliminary and revised facet list

• Controlled vocabularies spreadsheet

• Final report and presentations

• Project tracking spreadsheet

Contact Information

• Fred Leisefredleise@contextualanalysis.com

• Amy J. Warnerawarner@lexonomy.com

• Sarah A. Ricerice@seneb.com

© 2005, contextualanalysis, llc building a faceted classification ia summit redux - san francisco...

Documents

emissionsfrei, leise, langstreckentauglich

kitchen redux

edison redux

landscape redux

angular redux

ixd13 redux

redux - dusie.org

1984 redux

react & redux

fiscal cliff redux © 2012 mcdowall cotter1. fiscal cliff...

bylaws revision redux (and redux

(un)popular opinions - react finland uninstall redux-saga...

interaction12 redux

the complete redux book -...

real world redux -...

faceted identities

faceted navigation

devops redux

redux universal

projects - redux