Searching for images is an everyday activity. Nevertheless, even a highly skilled searcher often struggles to find what they are looking for. This article studies the factors that affect users’ online web image search behaviour, investigating (1) the use of criteria in making image relevance judgements and (2) the effect of familiarity, difficulty and satisfaction. The study includes 48 users who performed four online image search tasks using Google Images. Simulated work scenarios, questionnaires and screen capture recordings were used to collect data of their image search behaviour. The results show in judging image relevance, users may apply similar criterion, however, the importance of these criteria depends on the type of image search. Similarly, ratings of users’ perception on subjective aspects of performing image search shows they were task dependent. Users’ perception on subjective aspects of performing image search did not always correspond with their actual search behaviour. Correlation analysis shows that subjective factors cannot be definitively measured by using only one component of search behaviour. Future work includes further analysis on the effects of topic familiarity and satisfaction.
ArmitageLHEnserPGB. Analysis of user need in image archives. J Inf Sci1997; 23(4): 287–299.
2.
ChoiYRasmussenEM.Users’ relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history. Inform Process Manag2002; 38(5): 695–726.
3.
MarkkulaMSormunenE.End-user searching challenges indexing practices in the digital newspaper photo archive. Inform Retrieval2000; 1(4): 259–285.
4.
WestmanSOittinenP.Image retrieval by end-users and intermediaries in a journalistic work context. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on information interaction in context (IIiX 2006), Copenhagen, 18–20 October 2006, pp. 102–110. New York: ACM.
5.
SedghiSSandersonMCloughP.A study on the relevance criteria for medical images. Pattern Recogn Lett2008; 29(15): 2046–2057.
6.
CunninghamSJMasoodianM.Looking for a picture: an analysis of everyday image information searching. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, Chapel Hill, NC, 11–15 June 2006, pp. 198–199. New York: ACM.
7.
AulaAKhanRMGuanZ.How does search behavior change as search becomes more difficult? In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April 2010, pp. 35–44. New York: ACM.
8.
GwizdkaJLopatovskaI.The role of subjective factors in the information search process. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2009; 60(12): 2452–2464.
9.
KellarMWattersCShepherdM.A field study characterizing web-based information-seeking tasks. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2007; 58(7): 999–1018.
10.
LiuJLiuCGwizdkaJ. Can search systems detect users’ task difficulty? Some behavioral signals. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Geneva, 19–23 July 2010, pp. 845–846. New York: ACM.
11.
HirshSG.Children’s relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. J Am Soc Inform Sci1999; 50(14): 1265–1283.
12.
HungTYZoellerCLyonS.Relevance judgments for image retrieval in the field of journalism: a pilot study. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Asian digital libraries: implementing strategies and sharing experiences (ICADL’05), Bangkok, Thailand, 12–15 December 2005, pp. 72–80. Berlin: Springer.
13.
CrystalAGreenbergJ.Relevance criteria identified by health information users during web Searches: research articles. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2006; 57(10): 1368–1382.
14.
KellyDCoolC.The effects of topic familiarity on information search behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL’02), Portland, OR, 13–17 July 2002, pp. 74–75. New York: ACM.
15.
WenLRuthvenIBorlundP.The effects on topic familiarity on online search behaviour and use of relevance criteria. In: Proceedings of the 28th European conference on advances in information retrieval (ECIR’06), London, 10–12 April 2006, pp. 456–459. Berlin: Springer.
16.
QuPLiuCLaiM.The effect of task type and topic familiarity on information search behaviors. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on information interaction in context, New Brunswick, NJ, 18–21 August 2010, pp. 371–374. New York: ACM.
17.
ChoiY.Effects of contextual factors on image searching on the web. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2010; 61(10): 2011–2028.
18.
ByströmK.Information and information sources in tasks of varying complexity. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2002; 53(7): 581–591.
19.
LiuJBelkinNJ.Search task difficulty: the expected vs. the reflected. In: Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, New York, 24–28 July 2011, pp. 1183–1184. New York: ACM.
Al-MaskariASandersonM.A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2010; 61(5): 859–868.
22.
ShatfordS.Analyzing the subject of a picture: a theoretical approach. Cat Classif Q1986; 6(3): 39–62.
23.
BatleyS.Visual information retrieval: browsing strategies in pictorial database. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, 1988.
24.
JaimesAChangSF.A conceptual framework for indexing visual information at multiple levels. In: Proceedings of IS&T/SPIE internet imaging I, San Jose, CA, 28–30 January 2000, vol. 3964. pp. 2–15. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
25.
HollinkLSchreiberATWielingaBJ. Classification of user image descriptions. Int J Hum: Comput St2004; 61(5): 601–626.
26.
FidelR.The image retrieval task: implications for the design and evaluation of image databases. New Rev Hypermed Multimed1997; 3(1): 181–199.
27.
ChoiYRasmussenEM.Searching for images: the analysis of users’ queries for image retrieval in American history. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2003; 54(6): 498–511.
28.
SaracevicT.Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: behavior and effects of relevance. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2007; 58(13): 2126–2144.
29.
BarryCLSchamberL.Users’ criteria for relevance evaluation: a cross-situational comparison. Inform Process Manag1998; 34(2–3): 219–236.
30.
XuYCChenZ.Relevance judgment: what do information users consider beyond topicality?J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2006; 57(7): 961–973.
31.
BorlundP.The concept of relevance in IR. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2003; 54(10): 913–925.
32.
BuergerT.A model of relevance for reuse-driven media retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 12th international workshop of the multimedia metadata community, the 2nd workshop focusing on semantic multimedia database technologies (SMDT2010), Saarbrücken, 1–3 December 2010, pp. 41–54. Germany: CEUR-WS.
33.
LiYBelkinNJ.A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Inform Process Manag2008; 44(6): 1822–1837.
34.
HölscherCStrubeG.Web search behavior of internet experts and newbies. Comput Netw2000; 33(1): 337–346.
35.
SmithGBrienCAshmanH.Evaluating implicit judgments from image search clickthrough data. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2012; 63(12): 2451–2462.
36.
FukumotoT.An analysis of image retrieval behavior for metadata type image database. Inform Process Manag2006; 42(3): 723–728.
37.
ConnissLRAshfordAJGrahamME.Information seeking behaviour in image retrieval: VISOR I final report. Technical report, Institute for Image Data Research, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1January2000.
38.
KellyD.Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Found Trend Inf Retr2009; 3(1–2): 1–224.
39.
BorlundPIngwersenP.The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. J Doc1997; 53(3): 225–250.
40.
BorlundPSchneiderJW.Reconsideration of the simulated work task situation: a context instrument for evaluation of information retrieval interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on information interaction in context (IIiX2010), New Brunswick, NJ, 18–21 August 2010, pp. 155–164. New York: ACM.
41.
McCay-PeetLTomsE.Image use within the work task model: images as information and illustration. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2009; 60(12): 2416–2429.
42.
ChungEYoonJ.Image needs in the context of image use: an exploratory study. J Inf Sci2011; 37(2): 163–177.
43.
HungTY.Search strategies for image retrieval in the field of journalism. PhD Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 2006.
44.
LiuJColeMJLiuC. Search behaviors in different task types. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conference on digital libraries, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 21–25 June 2010, pp. 69–78. New York: ACM.
45.
LiuJLiuCYuanX. Understanding searchers’ perception of task difficulty: relationships with task type. Proc Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2011; 48(1): 1–10.
46.
TessierJCrouchWAthertonP.New measures of user satisfaction with computer based literature searches. Spec Libr1977; 68(11): 383–389.
47.
CohenJ.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988.
48.
TjondronegoroDSpinkAJansenB.A study and comparison of multimedia Web searching: 1997–2006. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2009; 60(9): 1756–1768.
49.
GökerAButterworthRMacFarlaneA. Expeditions through image jungles. J Doc2016; 72(1): 5–23.
50.
LuWJiaY.An eye-tracking study of user behavior in web image search. In: PhamD-NParkS-B (eds) PRICAI 2014: trends in artificial intelligence. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 170–182.
51.
ChoiY.Investigating variation in querying behavior for image searches on the web. Proc Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2010; 47(1): 1–10.
