Information systems have been improving in helping users find information. However, they have been less attended to regarding helping searchers in using located information. This research attempts to address the issue of information use by investigating what information systems and features searchers think are helpful in using located information to accomplish information tasks. In all, 32 college students were invited to an information interaction lab, first being interviewed on a recently completed task and then working on a to-be-finished task, both being their real-life tasks of their own choices. Through questionnaires, the study discovered the most favoured existing and expected features helpful for users’ task completion. Users expected convenient citations, note taking in search result pages and being kept on task. Findings in this study have implications on designing search systems that can better support task accomplishment, in addition to returning search results.
KuhlthauCC. Inside the search process: information seeking from the user’s perspective. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol1991; 42: 361–371.
2.
WilsonTD. Human information behavior. Inform Sci2000; 3(2): 49–55.
3.
VakkariP. Information search processes in complex tasks. In: Proceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction and retrieval, New Brunswick, NJ, 11–15 March 2018, p.1. New York: ACM.
IngwersenPJärvelinK. The turn: integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Berlin: Springer, 2005.
6.
JärvelinKVakkariPArvolaPet al. Task-based information interaction evaluation: the viewpoint of program theory. ACM Trans Inform Syst2015; 33(1): 1–30.
7.
LiuJBelkinNJ. Searching vs. writing: factors affecting information use task performance. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the American society for information science & technology (paper 127), Baltimore, MD, 28–31 October 2012, pp.1–10, https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/meet.14504901127
8.
VakkariPHuuskonenS. Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2012; 63(4): 657–670.
KumpulainenSJärvelinK. Information interaction in molecular medicine: integrated use of multiple channels. In: Proceedings of the third symposium on information interaction in context, New Brunswick, NJ, 18–21 August 2010, pp.95–104. New York: ACM.
13.
KumpulainenSJärvelinK. Barriers to task-based information access in molecular medicine. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2012; 63: 86–97.
14.
LiuJBelkinNJ. Multi-aspect information use task performance: the roles of topic knowledge, task structure, and task stage. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the American society for information science & technology, Seattle, WA, 31 October–5 November 2014, pp.1–10. New York: ACM.
15.
HuuskonenSVakkariP. Client information system as an everyday information tool in child protection work. In: Proceedings of the third symposium on information interaction in context, New Brunswick, NJ, 18–21 August 2010, pp.3–12. New York: ACM.
16.
HagenMPotthastMVölskeMet al. How writers search: analyzing the search and writing logs of non-fictional essays. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference on human information interaction and retrieval, Carrboro, NC, 13–17 March 2016, pp.193–202. New York: ACM.
17.
VakkariPVölskeMPotthastMet al. Predicting retrieval success based on information use for writing tasks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on theory and practice of digital libraries, Porto, 10–13 September 2018, pp.161–173. Berlin: Springer.
18.
BrandtJGuoPJLewensteinJet al. Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April 2009, pp.1589–1598. New York: ACM.
19.
BrandtJDontchevaMWeskampMet al. Example-centric programming: integrating web search into the development environment. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April 2010, pp.513–522. New York: ACM.
20.
FourneyA. Web search, web tutorials & software applications: characterizing and supporting the coordinated use of online resources for performing work in feature-rich software. PhD Dissertation, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2015.
21.
BudzikJHammondK. User interactions with everyday applications as context for just-in-time information access. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, New Orleans, LA, 9–12 January 2000, pp.44–51. New York: ACM.
22.
GolovchinskyGPriceMSchilitB. From reading to retrieval: freeform ink annotations as queries. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Berkeley, CA, 15–19 August 1999, pp.19–25. New York: ACM.
23.
NormanD. The next UI breakthrough: command lines. Interactions2007; 14(3): 44–45.
24.
FourneyAMorrisMRWhiteRW. Web search as a linguistic tool. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web, Perth, WA, Australia, 3–7 April 2017, pp.549–557. New York: ACM.
25.
AhnJBrusilovskyPHeDet al. Personalized web exploration with task models. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on world wide web, Beijing, China, 21–25 April 2008, pp.1–10. New York: ACM.
26.
HeDBrusilovskyPAhnJet al. An evaluation of adaptive filtering in the context of realistic task-based information exploration. Inform Process Manage2008; 44: 511–533.
27.
DonatoDBonchiFChiTet al. Do you want to take notes? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web, Raleigh, NC, 26–30 April 2010, pp.321–330. New York: ACM.
De RosaCCantrellJCellentaniDet al. Perceptions of libraries and information resources: a report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, OH: Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), 2005.
30.
DervinBReinhardCDAdamsonSKet al. Sense-making the information confluence: the whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase I: project overview, the Three-Field Dialogue project, and state-of-the-art reviews. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2006. Washington, DC: School of Communication; Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
31.
GeorgasH.Google vs. the library: student preferences and perceptions when doing research using Google and a federated search tool. Libr Acad2013; 13(2): 165–185.
