Comparing Browsing and Desktop Search

Transcription

1 A study submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Information Management At The University of Sheffield by September 2006

2 Abstract Search engines are popular and powerful utilities for information seeking, especially on the Web. With a few keystrokes, desired information appears from billions of Web pages. Nowadays, due to the ever-increasing storage space of hard disk drives, desktop search tools are also beginning to enjoy widespread use for finding personal information in local system. Indeed, a number of utilities for personal search are available on today s PCs. Previous research suggests that search alone is likely to remain a second choice to browsing when retrieving personal information. In most cases search is primarily used as a tactic when browsing fails, such as misfiling. Browsing rather than search remains many users preferred way to access personal information in part because of the lesser cognitive effort and a greater sense of control. In particular, search does not address some critical aspects of task management, such as reminding. However, previous researchers also acknowledge that the main reason that people rely on browsing is that the tools available for searching do not work well enough yet. This study aims to compare browsing with those up to date desktop search utilities, in particular looking at when and why people use desktop search. Meanwhile, both quantitative and qualitative data are collected via a mix of three types of research instruments, namely questionnaires, retrieval experiment and semi-structured interviews. The results in this research reveal that users typically prefer to retrieval their personal information utilizing a combination of browsing and search. In some cases, they even would like to try search first. As long as their search terms are specific enough, users would without doubt try and see if desktop search utility can work in the first place. However, desktop search utilities are currently inferior to their counterpart Web search engines. Searching is not able to 1

3 replace browsing completely, and vice versa. It is concluded that browsing and searching should not be seen as complementary ways of finding information and current PIM researchers also work towards this direction. 2

4 Acknowledgement I would like to say thank you to everyone who responded to this research in the past three months. Particular thanks go to Steve Whittaker for his supervision with encouragement and patience throughout the dissertation process. 3

5 Content Abstract...1 Acknowledgement...3 Content Introduction Background Research Aims and Objectives Research Gap Research Methods Dissertation Structure PIM Overview Introduction PIM Definition PIM framework PIM-related studies Empirical Studies Physical Environment Digital Environment Files Web Bookmarks Others Prototype design Embedding support Unifying interaction Stuff I ve Seen (SIS) Browsing vs. Desktop Search Introduction Browsing or Searching Browsing vs. Desktop search Browsing preference Reminding Folders = Information

6 4. Methodology Introduction Inductive vs. Deductive Quantitative Data vs. Qualitative Data Methods used Questionnaire Sample selecting Piloting Non-response Questionnaire Design Retrieval Experiment Retrieval Tasks Design Privacy issues Participants Piloting Interview Bias Recording Results and Discussion Introduction Questionnaires Session Profile of sample Preference Profiles of Desktop search User Desktop Search Selection Participant selection Retrieval Experiment Session Search has been better Quick Find vs. Browser Window New Portal s vs. Files Lifetime of use Query Characteristics Interview session

7 6. Conclusion Conclusion Limitation Recommendations for future research References APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

8 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Since 2000, 40GB disks at $10/GB have been replaced by 500GB disks at less than $1/GB, with terabyte drives expected to arrive by Along with the tremendous increase in the capacity of hard-disk drives, various kinds of new information sources become available at the same time. And then, of course, there is the fact that people to now beginning to store huge amounts of personal data on their own computers, such as documents, s, mp3s and videos, which leads to the new problems in accessing and searching these personal data. For many people, then, the problem is not so much storing data but how to find it. It is no wonder that sometimes we cannot find a document any more, even when we know we saved it somewhere. Ironically, in quite a few of these cases nowadays, the document we are looking for can be found faster on the World Wide Web than on our personal computer. In terms of Dumais et al. (2003) s viewpoint, this is due to both the multiplicity of independent applications used to manage information each with its own organizational hierarchy (e.g., , files, web, calendar), and to the limited search capabilities in many of them. Although searching for files is a basic feature found in the majority of Operating Systems, the complexity and range of data on the modern PC has left them limited in their usage, awkwardly slow and unable to navigate within documents, leaving them useless unless searching by file names (Turnbull, 2005). In response to this issue, major Web search providers and other companies are offering various new facilities for searching people s own information. In fact, desktop search technology itself is nothing new, which has been around for years. However, the new era began with Dumais et al. (2003) and their presentation of the Stuff I've Seen search system (SIS). After that, some well know names (e.g., Google and Yahoo!) have recently entered the space giving this technology a well-deserved boost in visibility. Google (Oct 2004) was the first major Web search company to release a desktop search beta application, which allows people to scan their computers for information in the same way 7

9 they use Google to search the web. Search providers Ask Jeeves, HotBot, Lycos, MSN, and Yahoo, as well as major Internet service providers such as AOL and Earthlink, are also developing similar technologies. In particular, the rich search functionality is being built into the newest generation of operating systems for PCs (e.g., Apple s Spotlight for Tiger OSX and Microsoft s Vista OS). One major factor in the competition is the desire by some Web search providers to use desktop search as a way to convince people to always or at least regularly use their portals. Therefore, this would create a large user base that could encourage businesses to either advertise on the portals or buy other services. Obviously, the desktop tag distinguishes these desktop search utilities from Web-based search engines. A Web-based search lets users track down information on the Internet, in contrast to this a desktop search lets users dig through files and on their computer as well as sift through their browser history. Unlike prior desktop or search, these latest desktop search facilities are fast and operate across entire archives and different applications. Using a unified index is without doubt the most significant technique feature of current desktop search utilities. Hard disk size has increased by a factor of 10,000 over the last 30 years, while disk bandwidth has increased by a factor of less than 100, and -even worse - disk access time has only decreased by a factor of 10 (Buttcher and Clarke, 2005). This gap will continue to widen in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is infeasible to scan the entire hard disk whenever a user is searching for a file that contains a certain piece of information (Buttcher and Clarke, 2005). The only way to achieve reasonable performance when searching several gigabytes of data is to build and maintain an index database. When indexing the files, desktop search tools collect three types of information about files (Wikipedia, 2006): File and directory names Metadata, such titles, authors, comments in file types such mp3, pdf and jpeg Content of supported documents 8

10 To search within documents, the tools need to be able to parse many different types of document. This is achieved by using filters that interpret selected file formats. For example, a Microsoft Office Filter might be used to search inside Microsoft Office documents and a pdf Filter might be used to search inside pdf documents. While desktop search utilities cannot index every type of file, users can download ifilter-like plug-ins to enable these tools to index new file types. Long-term goals for desktop search include the ability to search the contents of image files, sound files and video by context. Although the popularity of desktop search applications is growing by leaps and bounds, it is without doubt an incomplete solution for the personal information retrieval and its effectiveness in practice needs to be evaluated. To some extent, current desktop search facilities place people in a dilemma as to browsing or searching when finding personal information in their local system. 1.2 Research Aims and Objectives This dissertation does not aim to compare or evaluate current existing desktop search utilities, since host of articles related to this aspect are now available. The overall aims of this dissertation are to conduct an efficient and effective comparison between two kinds of personal information seeking strategies-browsing and desktop search, in particular looking at when and why people use desktop search, for example to look at whether users prefer to browse rather than search personal information. It will also look at how people organize desktop information on their computers. Several objectives are drawn up to achieve above aims, listing as follows. 1.3 Research Gap In the July 1995 SIGCHI Bulletin, Deborah Barreau and Bonnie Nardi rightly 9

11 point out that every computer user spends enormous time and effort in filing and finding of electronic files, yet there has been very little research on the subject. In fact, the vast majority of work is entirely focused on text-based information retrieval from databases and the web. In contrast to this, the aspect of searching in the local system, so far, has been seriously neglected in the realm of research. Furthermore, within these studies, most of previous researchers compared browsing with Whereis or Find like search utilities, which are hardly state of the art in local search. More recent desktop search utilities provide incremental indexing of file contents and significantly reduce search time while increasing accuracy. Therefore, this study aims to fill such research gap by comparing browsing with these latest desktop search utilities, such as Google Desktop and Windows Desktop Search. 1.4 Research Methods This dissertation adopts an inductive approach because this paper intends to compare two kinds of information seeking strategies, namely browsing and desktop searching, and the most important thing is that it does not make any prior hypothesis towards the expected outcomes. Moreover, both quantitative and qualitative data are required in this dissertation. In the meantime, three kinds of research instruments are employed, namely questionnaires, semi-structure interview and retrieval experiment. 1.5 Dissertation Structure The dissertation is structured as follows. Introduction This first section provides a background to the research and states the aim and relevant objectives of study as well. In addition, the methodology employed in this research is introduced briefly. 10

12 PIM overview This section presents an overview of Personal Information Movement and reviews the literatures on relevant field of research. Browsing vs. Desktop search This section focuses on the comparison between browsing and desktop search, a number of previous studies are analyzed and discussed. Methodology This section explains how the problem was investigated and why particular methods and techniques were utilized. Findings and Discussion The results of the study are presented and the appropriate analysis is conducted to make inferences that may support or disprove the current literature. Conclusion Conclusion and limitations of this study will be discussed and recommendations for further research also be suggested as well. List of references All the books and articles which have been cited or referred to in the dissertation are provided, adopting the Harvard method of referencing. Appendices Copies of all the research instruments (questionnaires, interview schedules and retrieval tasks sample) that have been used are included at the end of dissertation. 11

13 2. PIM Overview 2.1 Introduction In fact, both browsing and searching are categorized into one aspect of Personal Information Management (PIM), namely retrieval (also call finding/refinding). Therefore, it is really essential to present an overview of PIM before the comparison between the two strategies. Prior researches relevant to PIM are reviewed and discussed. At the end of this chapter, Stuff I ve Seen (SIS), the prototype of current major desktop search utilities, will be discussed PIM Definition Personal Information Management (PIM) is a fundamental aspect of daily computer-based activity in both work and home contexts (Barreau and Nardi, 1995), performed by millions of users, multiple times a day (Whittaker et al., 2000). The volume of personal information is expanding exponentially while human s brains stay the same. As a result, PIM is a rapidly growing area of research concerned with how people handle this avalanche of information (Jones, 2005). One major ideal of PIM is that we always have the right information in the right place, in the right form, and of sufficient completeness and quality to meet our current need (Jones and Maier, 2003). Boardman (2004) reviewed the previous definition of PIM and found that many of them draw from a traditional information management perspective. Such definitions are founded on the assumption that information is stored to facilitate later retrieval. For example, Lansdale (1988) refers to PIM as the methods and procedures by which we handle, categorize, and retrieve information on a day-to-day basis. Bellotti et al. (2002) describes PIM as the ordering of information through categorization, placement, or embellishment in a manner 12

14 that makes it easier to retrieve when it is needed PIM framework Barreau (1995) presented a conceptual framework that conveys the complex, high-level nature of PIM. She further divided PIM into four component sub-activities: 1. Acquisition of items to form a collection 2. Organization of items 3. Maintenance of the collection (store, edit, delete, archive) 4. Retrieval of items for reuse Barreau defines the first sub-activity acquisition as the methods and rules by which information becomes part of the PIM system (Barreau, 1995). Normally, this activity can be done manually (downloaded files from the Internet, personally created documents, etc.) or automatically (new received , cached files of previously visited web pages, etc.). As to next activity, organization, involves classifying, naming, grouping, and storing items in a digital location. It is without doubt that sound organization facilitates people to find items faster. A number of studies have revealed that there are diverse groups of users who organize their personal collections of files, , or bookmarks differently. Maintenance deals with the usual activities: backing up the information space, updating out-of-date items, archiving items that users feel they do not immediately need but might want to look at or use in the future, and deleting useless items. The last and most critical activity, retrieval for reuse, depends heavily on actions and routines taken during the previous activities (Barreau, 1995). Retrieval also depends on the situation and available information when it is initiated. There are 13

15 different strategies and tactics for searching. In general, browsing or searching will be employed within this activity. 2.2 PIM-related studies In general, two main areas of PIM-related researches can be identified, namely empirical studies and prototype design Empirical Studies Physical Environment Physical metaphors such as the Desktop Metaphor and the folder hierarchy have greatly influenced the design of PIM-tools (Smith et al., 1982). A number of researchers have studied information management practices in the physical domain in order to gain some implications for designing natural and convenient computer-based information systems. For example, Malone (1983) observed how people organize paper materials and suggested how computer systems could better support these activities. Two fundamental user strategies in managing paper documents were identified, namely filing and piling. Malone also observed the fundamental reminding affordance of desks people do not only arrange documents to find them again, they also do so to remind themselves of action still to be performed. Following this, Whittaker and Hirshberg (2001) took advantage of an office relocation to observe physical information management strategies. They observed that many people are irrational in terms of the information they manage, and usually a mixture of the piling and filing strategies identified by (Malone, 1983) are employed. They also noted the importance of older archived information for many people Digital Environment Previous studies in the digital realm have focused on users interaction with 14

16 various different subsets of their personal information, such as their s, electronic files and the Web bookmarks Files A number of studies investigated how people organize their computer files. Barreau and Nardi (1995) looked at the types of information managed by users, identifying three types based on lifetime of use, namely ephemeral, working, and archived. They noted the relative importance of ephemeral and working items retrieved by location-based browsing, over archived items and the use of search. Studies have also noted that users do not manage information simply to retrieve it later - they also store items as reminders of the outstanding tasks they have to perform. Fertig, Freeman, and Gelernter (1996) argued that people rely on temporal cues to locate files Similarly, another class of studies has investigated the different uses that people have for their . Mackay (1988) claimed that the use of electronic mail is strikingly diverse, and to some extent it is more than just a communication system. Whittaker and Sidner (1996) described the overload problem and linked it to difficulties that people have with deferred processing and classification of items. They found that in addition to using as a communication tool, it is now being used for additional functions, that it was not designed for, such as task management and personal archiving. Meanwhile, three types of management strategies: frequent filer, spring cleaner and no-filer were observed. More recently, the field study by Ducheneaut and Bellotti (2001) showed to be a habitat, that is, a facility that serves to organize many aspects of daily work and the place where PC users spend a considerable part of their workdays. 15

17 Web Bookmarks There is also a large body of literature reporting on how people use the Web bookmarks. Abrams et al. (1998) studied how people manage their bookmarks and presented four bookmark management strategies: no-filer, creation-time filer, end-of-session filer, and sporadic filer. They also provided a number of recommendations for improving the organization, visualization, representation, and integration of bookmarks. Jones et al. (2002) conducted detailed observations of the methods that people use to organize web pages for reuse and developed a functional analysis to show how the techniques people use depend on anticipated re-access needs Others In addition, Boardman (2004) listed many other types of personal information that have been studied, such as photos, time and task management, contacts, instant messaging, and voic . Detailing each of these is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is without doubt that first three - files and web bookmarks - act as the main focus of the previous empirical studies Prototype design For nearly as long as researchers have been examining how people manage personal information in the digital environment, PIM software and systems have been in development. In contrast to those designs aim at improving specific PIM tools, there has been extensive interest in the potential to improve integration between distinct applications (Boardman and Sasse, 2004). In terms of the effort to improve the integration, two main approaches can be identified as below: Embedding support for managing multiple types of information within an existing tool Unifying interaction with multiple types of information (e.g. files and ) within a consolidated interface 16

18 Embedding support With regard to the first integration approach, there has been a particular focus in the literature on embedding support for non-native information within clients (Bellotti and Smith, 2000; Bellotti et al., 2003; Gwizdka, 2002). Building on the observation that acts as a habitat for a wide range of user activities, Bellotti et al. (2003) built Taskmaster, a tool that recasts as task management based on embedded task-centric resources. It has been widely realized that people dislike switching to a different application purely for the purpose of information management. By utilizing embedding PIM, users are able to work with and organize the information without leaving their normal working context. Nevertheless, a key criticism of the embedding approach is that it increases the complexity of already complex tools, and therefore may not be suitable for less technical users (Boardman, 2004). For example, the Raton-Laveur prototype (Bellotti and Smith, 2000) includes no less than three organizing mechanisms Unifying interaction More recently, researchers realized that one major barrier to PIM is the need to create redundant organizational schemes for information created in or managed through different applications. Boardman (2001) points out that the overlap between these multiple hierarchies is often extensive, creating notable cognitive load and frustration for the user. Similarly, Bergman et al. (2003) state that related information should be collocated in a unified system, regardless of format. There is a need for supporting the efficient management of various information formats via one unified interface or application. Recent prototypes have worked towards this direction and several representatives are as below. The UMEA (User-Monitoring Environment for Activities) system built by Kaptelinin (2003) enables the organization of multiple types of information in terms of high-level projects. The design principle is based on the observation that 17

19 a user s activities often involve multiple PIM applications. Normally, a method to set up a project context is to create a project folder. This practice without doubt has several serious disadvantages. The UMEA system allows a user to specify the current project which is being worked on. Therefore, all information that the user interacts with, is automatically associated with that project. Between times the user may open lists of documents related to a project to understand the status of a project. An informal evaluation was carried out, resulting in positive feedback from several users regarding the principle of project-centric unification. The earliest time-based prototype is MEMOIRS system (Lansdale & Edmonds, 1992) that organizes information items in a sequence of events. Nevertheless the best-known time-based approach to information integration is Lifestreams (Freeman and Fertig, 1995; Fertig et al., 1996), which was developed as a replacement for the desktop metaphor. It provides a single time-ordered stream of electronic information, and supports searching, filtering and summarization. Lifestreams subsumes many separate desktop applications to accomplish the most common communication, scheduling, and search and retrieval tasks. Another notable time-based PIM prototype is the Milestones system (Ringel et al., 2003) which organizes cross-tool search results in a time-line visualization annotated with landmarks corresponding to a user s personal information such as events and images. MyLifeBits (Gemmell et al., 2002) is highly ambitious in scale. Its design aim is to allow a user to store and manage a lifetime s worth of everything that can be digitized, including , calendar events, contacts, documents, audio and video. MyLifeBits is inspired by Memex, a personal store envisioned by Vannevar Bush in 1945 for use by scientists. Bush posited Memex: a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility The MyLifeBits project is just an effort to implement a personal digital store. In particular, it focuses on multimedia files and support for rich annotations. One of the researchers, Gordon Bell, is trying out the system. Another ambitious current project is Haystack, which aims to create a fully 18

20 flexible and customizable PIM portal to all types of information a user may collect (Duynh et al., 2002). It is also a platform for creating, visualizing, and organizing information using RDF (Resource Definition Framework). Haystack is designed to address four specific expectations of the user, including the maximum flexibility in describing and organizing data, the freedom to group related items together (regardless of the programs used to edit the items), ease in manipulating and visualizing information in ways appropriate to the task at hand, and the ability to delegate tasks to software agents. Since providing powerful keyword-search as well as attribute-based management, Haystack together with Presto is categorized into attribute-based unification prototype (Boardman, 2004). Many of these prototypes are exciting and technologically innovative, but it remains to be seen whether they will be developed into end-user quality products, or if their ideas will be applied in operating systems or other PIM tools. At this point, Stuff I ve Seen (SIS) is without doubt the victor since it catapults itself ahead of other prototype systems. In light of Buttcher and Clarke s argument, the new era of personal information searching began with Dumais et al. (2003) and their presentation of the Stuff I've Seen search system (SIS). After that, major software companies collectively realized the real importance of full-text search, and Google (Oct 2004), Microsoft (Dec 2004), Yahoo (Jan 2005), and many others released their new desktop search tools. 2.3 Stuff I ve Seen (SIS) Stuff I ve Seen is a research project from Microsoft (Dumais et al., 2003). They have designed, deployed and evaluated a system that facilities people to find information they have seen before. Two key features of the SIS design support this. First, the system provides a unified index of information that a person has encountered on their computer, whether the information was an , web page, document, media file, calendar appointment, etc. Nowadays, people usually have to manage several different organizations of information, including the file system hierarchy for files, the folder hierarchy for , favorites or 19

21 history for web pages and other types of personal information. With SIS, all of these sources are integrated into a single index regardless of what form the information originated (Dumais et al., 2003). Second, in most of cases, these personal information, in contrast to the information on the Web site, have already been seen previously. Therefore, rich contextual cues can be employed to search for, such as time, author, thumbnails and previews. The SIS application is built on top of a modular MS Search indexing architecture. There are five main components (Dumais et al., 2003). The Gatherer specifies the interface to different content sources in their original format. The Filter decodes individual file formats and emits a character stream for further processing. The Tokenizer breaks the stream of characters into words and can also handle additional linguistic processing such as date normalization, stemming, etc. The Indexer builds a standard inverted index structure with position information to support quick retrieval. The Retriever is the query language for accessing stored information. The user interface (UI) of SIS allows users to specify queries and to view and manipulate results in an intuitive way. Since SIS works from a local index, query results can be returned very quickly, therefore allowing a highly interactive and iterative query strategy. Rather than other common search interfaces where users specify a few properties and then press a button to launch a query, SIS submits its queries whenever any of the filtering widgets in the UI are manipulated or when the user presses return. As a result, these features will without doubt facilitate a user to start broadly and then quickly refine their query by interactively filtering and sorting the results. Dumais et al. (2003) related these interface ideas to both Belkin et al. (2001) s work on iterative query refinement and Ahlberg et al. (1992) s work on dynamic queries. In order to evaluate SIS, Dumais et al. (2003) collected both qualitative and 20

22 quantitative data from 234 employees who used SIS during a six week period. Meanwhile, they studied SIS using two main techniques: questionnaires and log file analysis. According to the evaluation report, in general, people find information easily using SIS and use other search tools less frequently. By providing a unified index across all these different information sources SIS solves the issue of having to look in different places and to use different applications to find the information they are looking for. Date and people names, in particular, provide rich contextual cues for retrieval, while standard ranking functions seem less important in the context of personal information. A descendant of SIS - Windows Desktop Search - is freely available from toolbar.msn.com. 21

23 3. Browsing vs. Desktop Search 3.1 Introduction In this chapter, the relative merits of browsing and desktop search are examined, building on the previous relevant researches. To start off, it is necessary to take a glance at these two strategies in the broad sense, namely information seeking. Following this, in the context of desktop, we examine earlier studies and carry out the relative research gap. 3.2 Browsing or Searching Information seeking can be viewed as either information searching or information browsing, although information seeking is often, in practice, a combination of these two activities (Larger et al., 2001). The former assumes that the user is able to describe the information need in one or more terms that will match the terms used in the records themselves. The latter, in contrast, is informal, interactive and opportunistic, depending upon the user recognizing relevant information when it is encountered. Chang and Rice (1993) argued that information science has been biased towards specific, direct search, building on the assumption that users have well-defined information needs and know exactly what they are looking for. However, in practice, users are often in an anomalous state defined by Belkin et al. (1982) and do not have pre-defined search criteria. Larger et al. (2001) described browsing as an intuitive activity, and humans resort to it whenever they are seeking something but the search objective cannot be defined clearly. Moreover, browsing is an attractive proposition because it requires a comparatively smaller cognitive load than analytical search strategies do. The 22

24 need to recall from memory terms that will represent the information need is replaced by the cognitively easier task of recognizing relevant information as and when it is encountered during the browsing session (Larger et al., 2001). Humans are better able to recognize something than to generate a description of it. In particular, for tasks that are ill-defined or complex, browsing allows users to devote their full cognitive resources to problem definition and system manipulation (Marchionini, 1995). In addition to these, people browse to discover and learn. From Marchionini s viewpoint (1995), browsing is an activity that may yield new insights in two ways. On one hand, user may locate a highly relevant item by browsing through resources beyond those systematically coded and assigned as relevant. On the other hand, there is a chance identification of information that was not actually being sought but which proves interesting to the user. Such serendipity can often prove extremely valuable. Scholars are highly conscious of such possibilities and try to facilitate such serendipity. Nevertheless, browsing is slow, very time-consuming, and users tend to get disoriented and lose their original goals. In fact, browsing and searching should not be seen as rival, but rather as complementary ways of finding information (Larger et al., 2001). Both two strategies have their role to play in ensuring that information seekers can locate relevant information as effectively and effortlessly as possible. 3.3 Browsing vs. Desktop search As mentioned earlier, since the vast majority of work is entirely focused on text-based information retrieval from databases and the web, the aspect of searching in the local system, so far, has been seriously neglected in the realm of research. In particular, there have been few studies comparing the relative effectiveness between browsing and searching. 23

25 3.3.1 Browsing preference Barreau and Nardi (1995) compared two basic strategies for finding files, namely location-based (browsing) and logical (search). They describe location-based search as the process whereby a user takes a guess at the directory/folder or diskette where she thinks a file might be located, goes to that location, and then browses the list of files or array of icons in the location till she finds the file she s looking for. The process is iterated as needed. In contrast to this, in terms of Barreau and Nardi s viewpoint, in logical finding, a text-based search of keywords and filenames is used to search for files with such utilities as Macintosh Find and DOS whereis. Barreau and Nardi (1995) concluded that users prefer to find files by using location-based cues over text-based search approaches. They reported that users in their two independent studies (Barreau, 1995; Nardi et al., 1995) were inclined to browse lists of files rather than trying to remember exact file names. In the mixed studies by Barreau (1995), users did not use text searching techniques or used them very infrequently in three OS environments (DOS, Windows and OS/2). In one interview sequence, for example, a user was scanning a list of files to find a file she had only created that morning. She claimed that scanning the list to recognize the file name was easier than trying to remember the exact name, despite the recency of creation of the file. Barreau (1995) hypothesized that users may prefer location-based searching because it more actively engages the mind and body and imparts a greater sense of control. Barreau (1995) further hypothesized that users dislike sitting there waiting for the computer to return a list of files that may or may not be relevant. In contrast to this, users seem to actively find an actual file that they previously placed in a particular place. Similarly, in the Macintosh study by Nardi et al. (1995), researchers attributed the reluctance to use the Find command to the difficulty in remembering the name of the desired file. Macintosh users complained that text search programs are often slow and retrieve too many irrelevant files, and therefore they used them as the last resort. In addition, Barreau and Nardi (2005) also found that filenames were used for the purpose of jogging the memory rather than for the purpose of search. 24

26 Nardi and Barreau (1997) further suggested that Location-based searching is not a one-dimensional behavior. It is often based upon association with documents of similar type, on a similar topic, created about the same time, or in a similar stage of completion being located at the same place. For individual users, in particular, those dealt with a variety of projects and activities, the location-based storage and retrieval tactics to some extent relieve the overhead for what they have to remember to successfully organize and retrieve a document. In contrast to this, logical retrieval to some extent may require more work for the user than the location-based find. Users have demonstrated a reluctance to adopt complicated search strategies to retrieve their own electronic documents. Boardman and Sasse (2004) collected cross-tool data relating to three commonly managed collections of personal information, namely file, and web bookmark. Consistent with Barreau and Nardi s findings, they also pointed out that participants in their studies revealed a strong preference for browsing over search in all three tools. Furthermore, they found that there was variation between the collections in terms of the type of browsing employed. Meanwhile, two types of browsing were encountered. One is location-based browsing of folders/desktop icons, which is similar to the description of Barreau and Nardi (1995). And the other one is sorting/scanning of items, ordered by user-defined metadata (e.g. name ) or system-defined metadata (e.g. size ). When retrieving files, participants utilized a combination of both, that is, browsing to a folder, and then sorting items within it. As for , location-based browsing of folders was very infrequently. Normally, retrieval was concentrated on sorting and scanning the inbox. Although search was employed more in than in files, it was still likely to remain the last choice by most participants in both collections. This is in part because of user s familiarity with the structure of their own file systems. For example, one participant argued: I usually know exactly where I m going and what I m looking for. If I search I wouldn t necessarily know the exact keyword. If you know where you re going, browsing is a lot quicker. 25

27 With regard to bookmarks, several participants claimed that they preferred to search the web again rather than find a bookmark. Nevertheless, participants continued to save bookmarks, even though many were never used. Researchers associated this situation with some irrational behavior observed in paper archives, such as keeping personal copies of items that are publicly available (Whittaker and Hirschberg, 2001). In general, according to the studies by Boardman and Sasse (2004), participants expressed confidence that they just knew where to find items. In all three collections, failure to find items appeared to happen only occasionally. However, those rare occasions when they could not find items were highly frustrating, including deleting/archiving items, clutter, and misfiling. Teevan et al. (2004) presents a modified diary study that investigated how people performed personally motivated search behaviors across a broad class of electronic types, including , files, and the Web. They found that their participants used keyword search in only 39 per cent of their searches, despite almost always knowing their information need in advance. To understand how their participants performed directed searches, and why they avoided keyword search in many cases, Teevan et al. carried out a qualitative examination and uncovered two differing search strategies: orienteering and teleporting. In the light of Teevan et al. s viewpoint, orienteering involves using both prior and contextual information to narrow in on the actual information target, often in a series of steps, without specifying the entire information need up front. They call this information finding behavior as orienteering because it is similar to the notion of orienteering in O Day and Jeffries (1993). The alternative, as described by Teevan et al., is teleporting, where participants jump directly to their information target using keyword search facilities. Teevan et al. (2004) found that often keyword-based teleporting was not used when searching, and when they were used, it was usually part of an orienteering strategy. In general, participants in their studies preferred to orienteer toward their target. Although they occasionally used keyword search to help them narrow in on their target, they rarely teleported directly to what they were looking for. 26

28 Focusing on , nearly none of the retrieval activities involved teleporting, even though most participants programs provide keyword search facilities. In most cases, participants went directly to the correct folder (usually, their Inbox) that contained the message they desired. Then they would browse to the appropriate , using either the date or the sender as a guide. As for file, participants used orienteering techniques much more often than teleporting within their files as well. Finally, on the Web, participants tended to rely on teleporting more often, since the sophisticated web keyword search tools and the dynamic and huge space nature of the Web. However, even on the Web, several participants seemed to prefer orienteering when a specific information source is possible. Teevan et al. (2004) acknowledged that to some extent participants rely on orienteering is that the tools available for teleporting do not work well enough yet. However, they also observed a number of cases where people chose to orienteer even when teleporting might have worked. Accordingly, three main advantages of orienteering were put forward as below: Cognitive Ease By saving participants from having to articulate exactly what they were looking for, orienteering appeared to relieve their cognitive burden during searches. Sense of Location Muramatsu and Pratt (2001) suggested that people are bad at understanding the models that search engines use. Therefore, teleporting might feel disorienting and untrustworthy to some people. On the contrary, the relatively small steps taken in orienteering appeared to allow participants to maintain a sense of where they were, helping them to feel in control, to know they were traveling in the right direction with the ability to backtrack, and to feel certain they had fully explored the space when unable find what they were looking for. Understanding the Answer Both Dumais et al. (2001) and Lin (2003) addressed the importance of context in 27

29 understanding search results. In this light, orienteering hold an added advantage over simply presenting keyword search results with some surrounding context, since it allowed participants to arrive at their result along a path they could understand (Teevan et al., 2004). The above studies suggest that search is likely to remain a second choice to browsing, regardless of how good it becomes as a way of finding personal information again. In most cases, search is primarily used as a tactic when all else fail, such as misfiling and cluster. People prefer Browsing rather than search in part because of the lesser cognitive effort suffered and a greater sense of control imparted. The confidence of employing browsing typically comes from the familiarity with the structure of their own file system. Browsing, although not very fast, is generally successful at retrieving the required documents. However, within these studies, most of previous researchers compared browsing with traditional built-in search tools, which are slow, difficult and only operate on file names (not contents). Using such search tools require just as much effort as manual browsing, both cognitively and mechanically. In fact, those utilities such as whereis and Find are hardly state of the art in local search (Fertig et al., 1996). Up to date desktop search utilities are far more sophisticated than before, which provide incremental indexing of file contents and significantly reduce search time while increasing accuracy. Therefore, it is really essential to compare browsing with those recent desktop search utilities and examine users preference towards them Reminding Malone (1983) pointed out the inherent difficulties that users encounter in organizing the information in their desks and offices, and identified a number of routes which computer-based information system could follow to avoid such problems. One of the particularly influential founding was the fundamental reminding affordance of desks. From his point of view, a very important function of desk organization is to remind the user of things to do, not just to help the user 28

30 find desired information. By doing so, Malone went beyond the traditional information management perspective that focuses on storing items for future retrieval (Boardman, 2004). Following this, Barreau and Nardi (1995) observed that computer users often use an electronic file s location as a critical reminding function as well. For instance, at the end of the day a Macintosh user may leave files on the desktop as a reminder of work to be done the next morning. Other users left electronic mail messages in their in-box to remind them of meetings. From Barreau and Nardi s viewpoint, this critical reminding function of file placement dovetails back into users preference for location-based finding (Barreau and Nardi, 1995). In contrast, no matter how better text-based search is, there is no reminding function. However, Fertig et al. (1996) criticized that location-based reminders do not insure that one will actually be reminded of anything, and they further pointed out several problems associated with this kind of reminders, such as insufficient screen real estate, inapplicability to long-term tasks and collaborative work. Nevertheless, there is evidence that location-based reminding has meaning for us (Nardi and Barreau, 1997). This situation is really similar to those in the real world, where people place things in obvious places to avoid having to try to remember them later. Although this practice does not make sure they will be reminded, it does significantly add to the probability of their remembering (Nardi and Barreau, 1997). In terms of , its conduit function leads many people to exploit the inbox for task management (Whittaker et al., 2005). People usually leave the original message associated with current tasks in the inbox in order to serve to manipulate attention. They know that they will come back to the inbox to access new massages, and then they will be reminded of those outstanding tasks. In most cases, people even send themselves to create a message in the inbox as a reminder and perhaps a quick link to some useful information. In the study by Venolia et al. (2001), it was found that leaving a message in the inbox was by far the most frequent reminding strategy. It was much more common than other 29

31 techniques such as using flags or classifying messages as todo items. In addition, some users also organize s that relate to current tasks into active folders, returning to these folders when they need to deal with those tasks (Bellotti et al., 2005). Therefore, although search has been touted as a solution to PIM (Dumais et al., 2003), it is merely a partial solution to task management since it does not address the critical reminding function (Whittaker et al., 2005) Folders=Information People prefer to browse rather than search also in part because the folders provide important semantic information that would be hard to replace by search. Folders themselves are information as well. There is an additional statement that the re-access to personal information is not necessarily the sole or even the primary purpose of a folder organization Jones et al. (2005). Jones et al. (2005) presented a study in which they looked at the role of folders in the organization of project-related information. Within their study, when participants were first asked why they crated folders the most common answer given was a variation of organizing for later retrieval. All 14 participants gave this answer initially. However, when participants were then given the hypothetical Google like search utility, which would be fast, effortless to maintain, secure and private etc, merely one of the 14 participants would like to take away his folds and then adopt a folder-free solution. Initial results of the study by Jones et al. (2005) revealed that folders were clearly more than simply a means to one end: Organizing for later retrieval. In other words, the re-access to personal information is not necessarily the sole or even the primary purpose of a folder organization. Folders were information in their own right - representing, for example, a person s evolving understanding of a project and its components. Take one participant s folder structure for planning her wedding as a vivid example, many of the subfolders of the Wedding folder 30