skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1979205acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Characterizing the usability of interactive applications through query log analysis

Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

People routinely rely on Internet search engines to support their use of interactive systems: they issue queries to learn how to accomplish tasks, troubleshoot problems, and otherwise educate themselves on products. Given this common behavior, we argue that search query logs can usefully augment traditional usability methods by revealing the primary tasks and needs of a product's user population. We term this use of search query logs CUTS - characterizing usability through search. In this paper, we introduce CUTS and describe an automated process for harvesting, ordering, labeling, filtering, and grouping search queries related to a given product. Importantly, this data set can be assembled in minutes, is timely, has a high degree of ecological validity, and is arguably less prone to self-selection bias than data gathered via traditional usability methods. We demonstrate the utility of this approach by applying it to a number of popular software and hardware systems.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

1979205.mp4

mp4

114.3 MB

References

  1. Akers, D., Simpson, M., Jeffries, R., and Winograd, T. Undo and erase events as indicators of usability problems. In Proc CHI '09, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2009), 659--668. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aula, A., Khan, R. M., and Guan, Z. How does search behavior change as search becomes more difficult? In Proc CHI '10, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 35--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Baeza-Yates, R., and Tiberi, A. Extracting semantic relations from query logs. In Proc KDD '07, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2007), 76--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bar-Yossef, Z., and Gurevich, M. Mining search engine query logs via suggestion sampling. Proc. VLDB Endow. 1, 1 (2008), 54--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Barrett, R., Kandogan, E., Maglio, P. P., Haber, E. M., Takayama, L. A., and Prabaker, M. Field studies of computer system administrators: analysis of system management tools and practices. In Proc CSCW '04, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2004), 388--395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brandt, J., Guo, P. J., Lewenstein, J., Dontcheva, M., and Klemmer, S. R. Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code. In Proc CHI '09, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2009), 1589--1598. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Broder, A. A taxonomy of web search. SIGIR Forum 36, 2 (2002), 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dou, Z., Song, R., and Wen, J.-R. A large-scale evaluation and analysis of personalized search strategies. In Proc WWW '07, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2007), 581--590. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gikas, M. Lab tests: Why Consumer Reports can't recommend the iPhone 4. Consumer Reports (July 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., and Brilliant, L. Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457 (February 2009), 1012--1014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Google Corperation. Features: Google suggest. http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en\&answer=106230, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Google Corperation. Google AdWords keyword tool. https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal?forceLegacy=true, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Google Corperation. Google suggest : FAQ. https://labs.google.com/intl/en/suggestfaq.html, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilbert, D. M., and Redmiles, D. F. Extracting usability information from user interface events. ACM Computing Surveys 32, 4 (2000), 384--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Huang, J., and Efthimiadis, E. N. Analyzing and evaluating query reformulation strategies in web search logs. In Proc CIKM '09, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2009), 77--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Hurst, A., Hudson, S. E., and Mankoff, J. Dynamic detection of novice vs. skilled use without a task model. In Proc CHI '07, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2007), 271--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kellar, M., Watters, C., and Shepherd, M. A field study characterizing web-based information-seeking tasks. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 7 (2007), 999--1018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lafreniere, B., Bunt, A., Whissell, J. S., Clarke, C. L. A., and Terry, M. Characterizing large-scale use of a direct manipulation application in the wild. In Proc GI '10 (Toronto, Canada, 2010), 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), pp. 159--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Miller, G. A. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38 (November 1995), 39--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proc CHI '90, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 1990), 249--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Pang, B., and Lee, L. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 2 (January 2008), 1--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Quesenbery, W., Jarrett, C., Roddis, I., Allen, S., and Stirling, V. Search Is Now Normal Behavior. What Do We Do about That. In UPA 2008 (Baltimore, Maryland, USA, June 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Richardson, M. Learning about the world through long-term query logs. ACM Trans. Web 2, 4 (2008), 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Rose, D. E., and Levinson, D. Understanding user goals in web search. In Proc WWW '04, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2004), 13--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Saraiva, P. C., Silva de Moura, E., Ziviani, N., Meira, W., Fonseca, R., and Riberio-Neto, B. Rank-preserving two-level caching for scalable search engines. In Proc SIGIR '01, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2001), 51--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edition ed. Sage Publications, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Zeller, T. AOL technology chief quits after data release. The New York Times (August 2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Characterizing the usability of interactive applications through query log analysis
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      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
        CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 2011
        3530 pages
        ISBN:9781450302289
        DOI:10.1145/1978942

        Copyright © 2011 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: 7 May 2011

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate410of1,532submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader