Microsoft Word - 5888-14722-8-CE.docx


Exploratory	
  Subject	
  Searching	
  in	
  	
  
Library	
  Catalogs:	
  Reclaiming	
  the	
  Vision	
  

	
  
Julia	
  Bauder	
  and	
  	
  

Emma	
  Lange	
  
	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  JUNE	
  2015	
  

	
  	
   	
   	
   	
  

92	
  

ABSTRACT	
  

Librarians	
  have	
  had	
  innovative	
  ideas	
  for	
  ways	
  to	
  use	
  subject	
  and	
  classification	
  data	
  to	
  provide	
  an	
  
improved	
  online	
  search	
  experience	
  for	
  decades,	
  yet	
  after	
  thirty-­‐plus	
  years	
  of	
  improvements	
  in	
  our	
  
online	
  catalogs,	
  users	
  continue	
  to	
  struggle	
  with	
  narrowing	
  down	
  their	
  subject	
  searches	
  to	
  provide	
  
manageable	
  lists	
  containing	
  only	
  relevant	
  results.	
  This	
  article	
  reports	
  on	
  one	
  attempt	
  to	
  rectify	
  that	
  
situation	
  by	
  radically	
  reenvisioning	
  the	
  library	
  catalog	
  interface,	
  enabling	
  users	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  and	
  
explore	
  their	
  search	
  results	
  in	
  a	
  profoundly	
  different	
  way.	
  This	
  new	
  interface	
  gives	
  users	
  the	
  option	
  of	
  
viewing	
  a	
  graphical	
  overview	
  of	
  their	
  results,	
  grouped	
  by	
  discipline	
  and	
  subject.	
  Results	
  are	
  depicted	
  
as	
  a	
  two-­‐level	
  treemap,	
  which	
  gives	
  users	
  a	
  visual	
  representation	
  of	
  the	
  disciplinary	
  perspectives	
  (as	
  
represented	
  by	
  the	
  main	
  classes	
  of	
  the	
  Library	
  of	
  congress	
  Classification)	
  and	
  topics	
  (as	
  represented	
  
by	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  Library	
  of	
  Congress	
  Subject	
  Headings)	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  results.	
  

INTRODUCTION	
  

Reading	
  library	
  literature	
  from	
  the	
  early	
  days	
  of	
  the	
  OPAC	
  era	
  is	
  simultaneously	
  inspiring	
  and	
  
depressing.	
  The	
  enthusiasm	
  that	
  some	
  librarians	
  felt	
  in	
  those	
  days	
  about	
  the	
  new	
  possibilities	
  that	
  
were	
  being	
  opened	
  by	
  online	
  catalogs	
  is	
  infectious.	
  Elaine	
  Svenonius	
  envisioned	
  a	
  catalog	
  that	
  
could	
  interactively	
  guide	
  users	
  from	
  a	
  broad	
  single-­‐word	
  search	
  to	
  the	
  specific	
  topic	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  
were	
  really	
  interested.1	
  Pauline	
  Cochrane	
  conceived	
  of	
  a	
  catalog	
  that	
  could	
  group	
  results	
  on	
  
similar	
  aspects	
  of	
  a	
  given	
  subject,	
  showing	
  the	
  user	
  a	
  “systematic	
  outline”	
  of	
  what	
  was	
  available	
  on	
  
the	
  subject	
  and	
  allowing	
  the	
  user	
  to	
  narrow	
  their	
  search	
  easily.2	
  Marcia	
  Bates	
  even	
  pondered	
  
whether	
  “any	
  indexing/access	
  apparatus	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  stimulate,	
  intrigue,	
  and	
  give	
  pleasure	
  in	
  the	
  
hunt	
  is	
  defective,”	
  since	
  “people	
  enjoy	
  exploring	
  knowledge,	
  particularly	
  if	
  they	
  can	
  pursue	
  mental	
  
associations	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  way	
  they	
  do	
  in	
  their	
  minds.	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  Should	
  that	
  not	
  also	
  carry	
  over	
  into	
  
enjoying	
  exploring	
  an	
  apparatus	
  that	
  reflects	
  knowledge,	
  that	
  suggests	
  paths	
  not	
  thought	
  of,	
  and	
  
that	
  shows	
  relationships	
  between	
  topics	
  that	
  are	
  surprising?”3	
  However,	
  looking	
  back	
  thirty	
  years	
  
later,	
  it	
  is	
  dispiriting	
  to	
  consider	
  how	
  many	
  of	
  these	
  visions	
  have	
  not	
  yet	
  been	
  realized.	
  	
  

The	
  following	
  article	
  reports	
  on	
  one	
  attempt	
  to	
  rectify	
  that	
  situation	
  by	
  radically	
  reenvisioning	
  the	
  
library	
  catalog	
  interface,	
  enabling	
  users	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  and	
  explore	
  their	
  search	
  results	
  in	
  a	
  	
  
profoundly	
  different	
  way.	
  The	
  idea	
  is	
  to	
  give	
  users	
  the	
  option	
  of	
  viewing	
  a	
  graphical	
  overview	
  of	
  
their	
  results,	
  grouped	
  by	
  discipline	
  and	
  subject.	
  This	
  was	
  achieved	
  by	
  modifying	
  a	
  VuFind-­‐based	
  

	
  

Julia	
  Bauder	
  (bauderj@grinnell.edu)	
  is	
  Social	
  Studies	
  and	
  Data	
  Services	
  Librarian,	
  and	
  	
  
Emma	
  Lange	
  (langemm@grinnell.edu)	
  is	
  an	
  undergraduate	
  student	
  and	
  former	
  library	
  intern,	
  
Grinnell	
  College,	
  Grinnell,	
  Iowa.	
  



	
  

EXPLORATORY	
  SUBJECT	
  SEARCHING	
  IN	
  LIBRARY	
  CATALOGS:	
  RECLAIMING	
  THE	
  VISION	
  |	
  BAUDER	
  AND	
  LANGE	
  
doi:	
  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5888	
  

93	
  

discovery	
  layer	
  to	
  allow	
  users	
  to	
  choose	
  between	
  a	
  traditional,	
  list-­‐based	
  view	
  of	
  their	
  search	
  
results	
  and	
  a	
  visualized	
  view.	
  In	
  the	
  visualized	
  view,	
  results	
  are	
  depicted	
  as	
  a	
  two-­‐level	
  treemap,	
  
which	
  gives	
  users	
  a	
  visual	
  representation	
  of	
  the	
  disciplinary	
  perspectives	
  (as	
  represented	
  by	
  the	
  
main	
  classes	
  of	
  the	
  Library	
  of	
  Congress	
  Classification	
  [LCC])	
  and	
  topics	
  (as	
  represented	
  by	
  
elements	
  of	
  the	
  Library	
  of	
  Congress	
  Subject	
  Headings	
  [LCSH])	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  results.	
  An	
  example	
  
of	
  this	
  visualized	
  view	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  figure	
  1.	
  

Figure	
  1.	
  Visualization	
  of	
  the	
  Results	
  for	
  a	
  Search	
  for	
  “Climate	
  Change.”	
  

Subsequent	
  sections	
  of	
  this	
  paper	
  summarize	
  the	
  library-­‐science	
  and	
  computer-­‐science	
  literature	
  
that	
  provides	
  the	
  theoretical	
  justification	
  this	
  project,	
  explain	
  how	
  the	
  visualizations	
  are	
  created,	
  
and	
  report	
  on	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  usability	
  testing	
  of	
  the	
  visual	
  interface	
  with	
  faculty,	
  academic	
  staff,	
  and	
  
undergraduate	
  students.	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  JUNE	
  2015	
  

	
  

94	
  

LITERATURE	
  REVIEW	
  

Exploratory	
  Subject	
  Searching	
  in	
  Library	
  Catalogs	
  

Since	
  Charles	
  Ammi	
  Cutter	
  published	
  his	
  Rules	
  for	
  a	
  Printed	
  Dictionary	
  Catalogue	
  in	
  1876,	
  most	
  
library	
  catalogs	
  have	
  been	
  premised	
  on	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  users	
  have	
  a	
  very	
  good	
  idea	
  of	
  what	
  they	
  are	
  
looking	
  for	
  before	
  they	
  begin	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  the	
  catalog.4	
  In	
  this	
  classic	
  view,	
  users	
  are	
  either	
  
conducting	
  known-­‐item	
  searches—they	
  know	
  the	
  titles	
  or	
  the	
  author	
  of	
  the	
  books	
  they	
  want	
  to	
  
find—or	
  they	
  know	
  the	
  exact	
  subject	
  on	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  interested	
  in	
  finding	
  books.	
  Yet	
  research	
  
has	
  shown	
  that	
  known-­‐item	
  searches	
  are	
  only	
  about	
  half	
  of	
  catalog	
  searches,5	
  and	
  that	
  users	
  often	
  
have	
  a	
  very	
  difficult	
  time	
  expressing	
  their	
  information	
  needs	
  with	
  enough	
  detail	
  to	
  construct	
  a	
  
specific	
  subject	
  search.	
  Instead,	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  time,	
  users	
  approach	
  the	
  catalog	
  with	
  only	
  a	
  vaguely	
  
formulated	
  information	
  need	
  and	
  an	
  even	
  vaguer	
  sense	
  of	
  what	
  words	
  to	
  type	
  into	
  the	
  catalog	
  to	
  
get	
  the	
  resources	
  that	
  would	
  solve	
  their	
  information	
  need.6	
  

Even	
  in	
  the	
  earliest	
  days	
  of	
  the	
  OPAC	
  era,	
  librarians	
  were	
  aware	
  of	
  this	
  problem.	
  Some	
  of	
  them,	
  
including	
  Elaine	
  Svenonius	
  and	
  Pauline	
  Cochrane,	
  speculated	
  about	
  better	
  use	
  of	
  subject	
  and	
  
classification	
  data	
  to	
  try	
  to	
  help	
  users	
  who	
  enter	
  too-­‐short,	
  overly	
  broad	
  searches	
  focus	
  their	
  
results	
  on	
  the	
  information	
  that	
  they	
  truly	
  want.	
  One	
  of	
  Cochrane’s	
  many	
  ideas	
  on	
  this	
  topic	
  was	
  to	
  
use	
  subject	
  and	
  classification	
  data	
  “to	
  present	
  a	
  systematic	
  outline	
  of	
  a	
  subject,”	
  which	
  would	
  let	
  
users	
  see	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  different	
  aspects	
  of	
  that	
  subject,	
  as	
  reflected	
  in	
  the	
  library’s	
  classification	
  
system	
  and	
  subject	
  headings,	
  and	
  the	
  various	
  locations	
  where	
  those	
  materials	
  could	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  
the	
  library.7	
  Svenonius	
  suggested	
  using	
  library	
  classifications	
  to	
  help	
  narrow	
  users’	
  searches	
  to	
  
appropriate	
  areas	
  of	
  the	
  catalog.	
  For	
  example,	
  she	
  suggests,	
  if	
  a	
  user	
  enters	
  “freedom”	
  as	
  a	
  search	
  
term,	
  the	
  system	
  might	
  be	
  programmed	
  to	
  present	
  to	
  the	
  user	
  contexts	
  in	
  which	
  “freedom”	
  is	
  used	
  
in	
  the	
  Dewey	
  Decimal	
  Classification,	
  such	
  as	
  “freedom	
  of	
  choice”	
  or	
  “freedom	
  of	
  the	
  press.”	
  Once	
  
the	
  user	
  selects	
  a	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  phrases,	
  Svenonius	
  continued,	
  the	
  system	
  could	
  present	
  the	
  user	
  
with	
  additional	
  contextual	
  information,	
  again	
  allow	
  the	
  user	
  to	
  specify	
  which	
  context	
  is	
  desired,	
  
and	
  then	
  guide	
  the	
  user	
  to	
  the	
  exact	
  call	
  number	
  range	
  for	
  information	
  on	
  the	
  topic.	
  She	
  concluded,	
  
“Thus	
  by	
  contextualizing	
  vague	
  words,	
  such	
  as	
  freedom,	
  within	
  perspective	
  hierarchies,	
  the	
  
computer	
  might	
  guide	
  a	
  user	
  from	
  an	
  ineptly	
  or	
  imprecisely	
  articulated	
  search	
  request	
  to	
  one	
  that	
  
is	
  quite	
  specific.”8	
  

Ideas	
  such	
  as	
  these	
  had	
  little	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  design	
  of	
  production	
  library	
  catalogs	
  until	
  the	
  late	
  
1990s,	
  when	
  a	
  Dutch	
  company,	
  MediaLab	
  Solutions,	
  began	
  developing	
  AquaBrowser,	
  which	
  
features	
  a	
  word	
  cloud	
  composed	
  of	
  synonyms	
  and	
  other	
  words	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  search	
  term	
  and	
  
allows	
  users	
  to	
  refocus	
  their	
  search	
  by	
  clicking	
  on	
  these	
  words.9	
  AquaBrowser	
  became	
  available	
  in	
  
the	
  United	
  States	
  in	
  the	
  mid-­‐2000s,	
  shortly	
  before	
  North	
  Carolina	
  State	
  University	
  launched	
  its	
  
Endeca-­‐based	
  catalog	
  in	
  2006.10	
  	
  

While	
  AquaBrowser’s	
  word	
  cloud	
  is	
  certainly	
  visually	
  striking,	
  the	
  feature	
  that	
  these	
  and	
  most	
  of	
  
the	
  subsequent	
  “next-­‐generation”	
  library	
  catalogs	
  implement	
  that	
  has	
  had	
  the	
  most	
  impact	
  on	
  
search	
  behavior	
  is	
  faceting.	
  Facets,	
  while	
  not	
  as	
  sophisticated	
  as	
  the	
  systems	
  envisioned	
  by	
  



	
  

EXPLORATORY	
  SUBJECT	
  SEARCHING	
  IN	
  LIBRARY	
  CATALOGS:	
  RECLAIMING	
  THE	
  VISION	
  |	
  BAUDER	
  AND	
  LANGE	
  
doi:	
  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5888	
  

95	
  

Svenonius	
  and	
  Cochrane,	
  are	
  partial	
  solutions	
  to	
  the	
  problems	
  they	
  lay	
  out.	
  Facets	
  can	
  serve	
  to	
  
give	
  users	
  a	
  high-­‐level	
  overview	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  available	
  on	
  a	
  topic,	
  based	
  on	
  classification,	
  format,	
  
period,	
  or	
  other	
  factors.	
  They	
  can	
  also	
  help	
  guide	
  a	
  user	
  from	
  an	
  impossibly	
  broad	
  search	
  to	
  a	
  
more	
  focused	
  one.	
  Various	
  studies	
  have	
  shown	
  that	
  faceted	
  interfaces	
  are	
  effective	
  at	
  helping	
  
users	
  narrow	
  their	
  searches,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  helping	
  them	
  discover	
  more	
  relevant	
  materials	
  than	
  they	
  
did	
  when	
  performing	
  similar	
  tasks	
  on	
  nonfaceted	
  interfaces.11	
  However,	
  studies	
  have	
  also	
  shown	
  
that	
  users	
  can	
  become	
  overwhelmed	
  by	
  the	
  number	
  and	
  variety	
  of	
  facets	
  available	
  and	
  the	
  number	
  
of	
  options	
  shown	
  under	
  each	
  facet.12	
  

Visual	
  Interfaces	
  to	
  Document	
  Corpora	
  

When	
  librarians	
  were	
  pondering	
  how	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  better	
  online	
  library	
  catalog,	
  computer	
  scientists	
  
were	
  investigating	
  the	
  broader	
  problem	
  of	
  helping	
  users	
  to	
  navigate	
  and	
  search	
  large	
  databases	
  
and	
  collections	
  of	
  documents	
  effectively.	
  Visual	
  interfaces	
  have	
  been	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  methods	
  computer	
  
scientists	
  have	
  investigated	
  for	
  providing	
  user-­‐friendly	
  navigation,	
  with	
  perhaps	
  the	
  most	
  
prominent	
  early	
  advocate	
  for	
  visual	
  interfaces	
  being	
  Ben	
  Shneiderman.13	
  In	
  recent	
  years,	
  
Shneiderman	
  and	
  other	
  researchers	
  have	
  built	
  and	
  tested	
  various	
  types	
  of	
  experimental	
  visual	
  
interfaces	
  for	
  different	
  forms	
  of	
  information-­‐seeking.14	
  However,	
  with	
  a	
  few	
  exceptions,	
  most	
  of	
  
these	
  visual	
  interfaces	
  have	
  remained	
  in	
  a	
  laboratory	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  production	
  setting.15	
  With	
  the	
  
exception	
  of	
  the	
  “date	
  slider,”	
  a	
  common	
  interface	
  feature	
  that	
  displays	
  a	
  bar	
  graph	
  showing	
  dates	
  
related	
  to	
  the	
  search	
  results	
  and	
  allows	
  users	
  to	
  slide	
  handles	
  to	
  include	
  or	
  exclude	
  times	
  from	
  
their	
  search	
  results,	
  few	
  current	
  document	
  search	
  systems	
  present	
  users	
  with	
  any	
  kind	
  of	
  visual	
  
interface.	
  

METHOD	
  

The	
  Grinnell	
  College	
  Libraries	
  use	
  VuFind,	
  open-­‐source	
  software	
  originally	
  developed	
  at	
  Villanova	
  
University	
  as	
  a	
  discovery	
  layer	
  to	
  use	
  over	
  a	
  traditional	
  ILS.	
  VuFind	
  in	
  turn	
  makes	
  use	
  of	
  Apache	
  
Solr,	
  a	
  powerful	
  open-­‐source	
  indexing	
  and	
  search	
  platform,	
  and	
  SolrMarc,	
  code	
  developed	
  within	
  
the	
  library	
  community	
  that	
  facilitates	
  indexing	
  MARC	
  records	
  into	
  Solr.	
  Using	
  SolrMarc,	
  MARC	
  
fields	
  and	
  subfields	
  are	
  mapped	
  to	
  various	
  fields	
  in	
  the	
  Solr	
  index;	
  for	
  example,	
  the	
  contents	
  of	
  
MARC	
  field	
  020,	
  subfield	
  a,	
  and	
  field	
  773,	
  subfield	
  z,	
  are	
  both	
  mapped	
  to	
  a	
  Solr	
  index	
  field	
  called	
  
“isbn.”	
  More	
  than	
  fifty	
  Solr	
  fields	
  are	
  populated	
  in	
  our	
  index.	
  Our	
  visualization	
  system	
  was	
  built	
  on	
  
top	
  of	
  VuFind’s	
  Solr	
  index	
  and	
  visualizes	
  data	
  taken	
  directly	
  from	
  the	
  index.	
  	
  

The	
  visualizations	
  are	
  created	
  in	
  Javascript	
  using	
  the	
  D3.js	
  visualization	
  library,	
  and	
  they	
  are	
  
designed	
  to	
  implement	
  Shneiderman’s	
  Visual	
  Information	
  Seeking	
  Mantra:	
  “Overview	
  first,	
  zoom	
  
and	
  filter,	
  then	
  details-­‐on-­‐demand.”16	
  The	
  goal	
  was	
  to	
  give	
  users	
  the	
  option	
  of	
  viewing	
  a	
  graphical	
  
overview	
  of	
  their	
  results,	
  grouped	
  by	
  disciplinary	
  perspective	
  and	
  topic,	
  and	
  then	
  allow	
  them	
  to	
  
zoom	
  in	
  on	
  the	
  results	
  from	
  specific	
  perspectives	
  or	
  on	
  specific	
  topics.	
  Once	
  they	
  have	
  used	
  the	
  
interactive	
  visualization	
  to	
  narrow	
  their	
  search,	
  they	
  can	
  choose	
  to	
  see	
  a	
  traditional	
  list	
  of	
  results	
  
with	
  full	
  bibliographic	
  details	
  about	
  the	
  items.	
  This	
  would,	
  ideally,	
  provide	
  a	
  version	
  of	
  the	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  JUNE	
  2015	
  

	
  

96	
  

systematic	
  outline	
  that	
  Cochrane	
  envisioned.	
  It	
  should	
  also	
  support	
  users	
  as	
  they	
  attempt	
  to	
  
narrow	
  down	
  their	
  search	
  results	
  and	
  focus	
  on	
  a	
  specific	
  aspect	
  of	
  their	
  chosen	
  subject	
  without	
  
overwhelming	
  them	
  with	
  long	
  lists	
  of	
  results	
  or	
  of	
  facets.	
  

Currently,	
  we	
  are	
  visualizing	
  values	
  of	
  two	
  fields,	
  one	
  containing	
  the	
  first	
  letter	
  of	
  the	
  items’	
  
Library	
  of	
  Congress	
  Classification	
  (LCC)	
  numbers	
  and	
  the	
  other	
  containing	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  items’	
  
Library	
  of	
  Congress	
  Subject	
  Headings	
  (LCSH).	
  This	
  data	
  is	
  visualized	
  as	
  a	
  two-­‐level	
  treemap.17	
  
First,	
  large	
  boxes	
  are	
  drawn	
  representing	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  items	
  matching	
  the	
  search	
  within	
  each	
  
letter	
  of	
  the	
  LCC.	
  Within	
  the	
  largest	
  of	
  these	
  boxes,	
  smaller	
  boxes	
  are	
  drawn	
  showing	
  the	
  most	
  
common	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  subject	
  headings	
  for	
  items	
  matching	
  that	
  search	
  within	
  that	
  LCC	
  main	
  
class.	
  Less	
  common	
  subject	
  heading	
  elements	
  are	
  combined	
  into	
  an	
  additional	
  small	
  box,	
  labeled	
  
“X	
  more	
  topics”;	
  clicking	
  on	
  that	
  box	
  zooms	
  in	
  so	
  that	
  users	
  only	
  see	
  results	
  from	
  one	
  LCC	
  main	
  
class,	
  and	
  it	
  displays	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  LCSH	
  headings	
  applied	
  to	
  items	
  in	
  that	
  group.	
  Similarly,	
  users	
  can	
  
click	
  on	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  smaller	
  LCC	
  boxes,	
  which	
  do	
  not	
  contain	
  LCSH	
  boxes	
  in	
  the	
  original	
  
visualization,	
  to	
  zoom	
  in	
  on	
  that	
  LCC	
  main	
  class	
  and	
  see	
  the	
  LCSH	
  subject	
  headings	
  for	
  it.	
  Both	
  the	
  
large	
  and	
  the	
  small	
  boxes	
  are	
  sized	
  to	
  represent	
  what	
  proportion	
  of	
  the	
  results	
  were	
  in	
  that	
  LCC	
  
main	
  class	
  or	
  had	
  that	
  LCSH	
  subject	
  heading.	
  	
  

This	
  is	
  easier	
  to	
  explain	
  with	
  a	
  concrete	
  example.	
  Let’s	
  say	
  a	
  student	
  were	
  to	
  search	
  for	
  “climate	
  
change”	
  and	
  click	
  on	
  the	
  option	
  to	
  visualize	
  the	
  results.	
  You	
  can	
  see	
  what	
  this	
  looks	
  like	
  in	
  figure	
  1.	
  
Instead	
  of	
  seeing	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  nearly	
  two	
  thousand	
  books,	
  the	
  student	
  now	
  sees	
  a	
  visual	
  representation	
  
of	
  the	
  disciplinary	
  perspectives	
  (as	
  represented	
  by	
  the	
  main	
  classes	
  of	
  the	
  LCC)	
  and	
  topics	
  (as	
  
represented	
  by	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  LCSH)	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  results.	
  Users	
  could	
  click	
  to	
  zoom	
  in	
  on	
  any	
  
main	
  class	
  within	
  the	
  LCC	
  to	
  see	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  topics	
  covered	
  by	
  books	
  in	
  that	
  class,	
  as	
  in	
  figure	
  2,	
  
where	
  the	
  student	
  has	
  zoomed	
  in	
  on	
  “S	
  –	
  Agriculture.”	
  Or	
  users	
  could	
  click	
  on	
  any	
  topic	
  facet	
  to	
  see	
  
a	
  traditional	
  results	
  list	
  of	
  books	
  with	
  that	
  topic	
  facet	
  in	
  that	
  main	
  class.	
  At	
  any	
  zoom	
  level,	
  users	
  
could	
  choose	
  to	
  return	
  to	
  the	
  traditional	
  results	
  list	
  by	
  clicking	
  on	
  the	
  “List	
  Results”	
  option.18	
  

We	
  launched	
  this	
  feature	
  in	
  our	
  catalog	
  midway	
  through	
  the	
  spring	
  2014	
  semester.	
  Formal	
  
usability	
  testing	
  was	
  completed	
  with	
  five	
  advanced	
  undergraduates,	
  three	
  staff,	
  and	
  two	
  faculty	
  
members	
  in	
  the	
  summer	
  of	
  2014.	
  (See	
  appendix	
  A	
  for	
  the	
  outline	
  of	
  the	
  usability	
  test.)	
  One	
  first-­‐
year	
  student	
  completed	
  usability	
  testing	
  in	
  the	
  fall	
  2014	
  semester.	
  The	
  usability	
  study	
  asked	
  
participants	
  to	
  complete	
  a	
  set	
  list	
  of	
  nine	
  specific,	
  predetermined	
  tasks.	
  Some	
  tasks	
  involved	
  the	
  
use	
  of	
  now-­‐standard	
  catalog	
  features,	
  such	
  as	
  saving	
  results	
  to	
  a	
  list	
  and	
  emailing	
  results	
  to	
  oneself,	
  
while	
  about	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  tasks	
  involved	
  navigation	
  of	
  the	
  visualization	
  tool,	
  which	
  was	
  entirely	
  new	
  
to	
  the	
  participants.	
  Each	
  participant	
  received	
  the	
  same	
  tasks	
  and	
  testing	
  experience	
  regardless	
  of	
  
their	
  status	
  as	
  a	
  student,	
  faculty,	
  or	
  staff,	
  and	
  each	
  academic	
  division	
  was	
  represented	
  among	
  the	
  
participants.	
  	
  



	
  

EXPLORATORY	
  SUBJECT	
  SEARCHING	
  IN	
  LIBRARY	
  CATALOGS:	
  RECLAIMING	
  THE	
  VISION	
  |	
  BAUDER	
  AND	
  LANGE	
  
doi:	
  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5888	
  

97	
  

	
  

Figure	
  2.	
  Visualization	
  of	
  the	
  Results	
  for	
  a	
  Search	
  for	
  “Climate	
  Change,”	
  Filtered	
  to	
  Show	
  Only	
  
Results	
  with	
  Library	
  of	
  Congress	
  Classification	
  Numbers	
  Starting	
  with	
  S.	
  

RESULTS	
  

Usability	
  testing	
  revealed	
  no	
  major	
  obstacles	
  in	
  the	
  way	
  of	
  users’	
  ability	
  to	
  navigate	
  the	
  
visualization	
  feature;	
  the	
  visualized	
  search	
  results	
  were	
  quickly	
  deciphered	
  by	
  the	
  participants	
  
with	
  the	
  assistance	
  of	
  the	
  context	
  set	
  by	
  the	
  study’s	
  outlined	
  tasks.	
  Familiarity	
  with	
  library	
  
catalogs	
  in	
  general,	
  and	
  the	
  Grinnell	
  College	
  Libraries	
  catalog	
  in	
  particular,	
  showed	
  no	
  marked	
  
impact	
  on	
  users’	
  performance.	
  No	
  particular	
  user	
  group	
  performed	
  as	
  an	
  outlier	
  in	
  regards	
  to	
  
users’	
  general	
  ability	
  to	
  complete	
  tasks	
  or	
  the	
  time	
  required	
  to	
  do	
  so.	
  	
  

The	
  most	
  common	
  issue	
  to	
  arise	
  during	
  the	
  session	
  concerned	
  the	
  visualization’s	
  truncated	
  text,	
  
which	
  appears	
  in	
  the	
  far	
  left	
  column	
  of	
  results	
  when	
  the	
  descriptor	
  text	
  contains	
  too	
  many	
  
characters	
  for	
  the	
  space	
  allocated.	
  (An	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  truncated	
  text	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  figure	
  1.)	
  The	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  JUNE	
  2015	
  

	
  

98	
  

subject	
  boxes	
  appearing	
  in	
  the	
  furthest	
  left	
  column	
  contain	
  the	
  least	
  results,	
  and	
  therefore	
  receive	
  
the	
  least	
  space	
  within	
  the	
  visualization.	
  This	
  limited	
  space	
  sometimes	
  results	
  in	
  truncated	
  text.	
  
The	
  full-­‐text	
  can	
  be	
  viewed	
  by	
  hovering	
  over	
  the	
  truncated	
  text	
  box,	
  but	
  few	
  users	
  discovered	
  this	
  
capability.	
  Another	
  common	
  concern	
  involved	
  a	
  participant’s	
  ability	
  to	
  switch	
  their	
  search	
  results	
  
from	
  the	
  default	
  list	
  view	
  to	
  the	
  visualized	
  view.	
  All	
  participants	
  were	
  capable	
  of	
  selecting	
  the	
  
“Visualize	
  These	
  Results”	
  button	
  required	
  to	
  produce	
  the	
  visualization,	
  but	
  a	
  handful	
  of	
  
participants	
  expressed	
  that	
  they	
  feared	
  they	
  would	
  not	
  find	
  that	
  option	
  if	
  they	
  were	
  not	
  prompted	
  
to	
  do	
  so.	
  

Participants	
  remarked	
  that	
  the	
  visualization	
  initially	
  appeared	
  daunting	
  but	
  then	
  quickly	
  became	
  
comfortable	
  navigating	
  the	
  results.	
  Most	
  participants,	
  including	
  staff,	
  stated	
  that	
  they	
  found	
  the	
  
tool	
  useful	
  and	
  intended	
  to	
  use	
  it	
  in	
  the	
  future	
  during	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  their	
  typical	
  work	
  at	
  the	
  college.	
  

CONCLUSION	
  

Librarians	
  have	
  had	
  innovative	
  ideas	
  for	
  ways	
  to	
  use	
  subject	
  and	
  classification	
  data	
  to	
  provide	
  an	
  
improved	
  online	
  search	
  experience	
  for	
  decades,	
  yet	
  after	
  thirty-­‐plus	
  years	
  of	
  improvements	
  in	
  
online	
  catalogs,	
  users	
  continue	
  to	
  struggle	
  with	
  narrowing	
  down	
  their	
  searches	
  to	
  produce	
  
manageable	
  lists	
  containing	
  only	
  relevant	
  results.19	
  Computer	
  scientists	
  have	
  been	
  advocating	
  for	
  
interfaces	
  to	
  support	
  visual	
  information-­‐seeking	
  since	
  the	
  1980s.	
  Finally,	
  hardware	
  and	
  software	
  
have	
  improved	
  to	
  the	
  point	
  where	
  many	
  of	
  these	
  ideas	
  can	
  be	
  implemented	
  feasibly,	
  even	
  by	
  
relatively	
  small	
  libraries.	
  Now	
  is	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  put	
  some	
  of	
  them	
  into	
  production	
  and	
  see	
  how	
  well	
  
they	
  work	
  for	
  library	
  users.	
  The	
  particular	
  visualizations	
  reported	
  in	
  this	
  article	
  may	
  or	
  may	
  not	
  
be	
  the	
  best	
  possible	
  visualizations	
  of	
  bibliographic	
  data,	
  but	
  we	
  will	
  never	
  know	
  which	
  of	
  these	
  
ideas	
  might	
  prove	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  revolution	
  that	
  library	
  discovery	
  interfaces	
  need	
  until	
  we	
  try	
  them.	
  

	
   	
  



	
  

EXPLORATORY	
  SUBJECT	
  SEARCHING	
  IN	
  LIBRARY	
  CATALOGS:	
  RECLAIMING	
  THE	
  VISION	
  |	
  BAUDER	
  AND	
  LANGE	
  
doi:	
  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5888	
  

99	
  

Appendix	
  A.	
  Usability	
  Testing	
  Instrument	
  

Introductory	
  Questions	
  

Before	
  we	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  site,	
  I’d	
  like	
  to	
  ask	
  you	
  just	
  a	
  few	
  quick	
  questions.	
  

—Have	
  you	
  searched	
  for	
  materials	
  using	
  the	
  Grinnell	
  College	
  libraries’	
  website	
  before?	
  If	
  so,	
  what	
  
for	
  and	
  when?	
  (For	
  students	
  only:	
  Could	
  you	
  please	
  estimate	
  how	
  many	
  research	
  projects	
  you’ve	
  
done	
  at	
  Grinnell	
  College	
  using	
  the	
  library	
  catalog?)	
  

In	
  the	
  Grinnell	
  College	
  Libraries,	
  we’re	
  testing	
  out	
  a	
  new	
  tool	
  in	
  our	
  catalog	
  that	
  presents	
  search	
  
results	
  in	
  a	
  different	
  way	
  than	
  you	
  are	
  used	
  to.	
  Now	
  I’m	
  going	
  to	
  read	
  you	
  a	
  short	
  explanation	
  of	
  
why	
  we	
  created	
  this	
  tool	
  and	
  what	
  we	
  hope	
  the	
  tool	
  will	
  do	
  for	
  you	
  before	
  we	
  start	
  the	
  test.	
  

Research	
  is	
  a	
  conversation:	
  a	
  scholar	
  reads	
  writings	
  by	
  other	
  scholars	
  in	
  the	
  field,	
  then	
  enters	
  into	
  
dialogue	
  with	
  them	
  in	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  writing.	
  Most	
  of	
  the	
  time,	
  these	
  conversations	
  happen	
  within	
  
the	
  boundaries	
  of	
  a	
  single	
  discipline,	
  such	
  as	
  chemistry,	
  sociology,	
  or	
  art	
  history,	
  even	
  when	
  many	
  
disciplines	
  are	
  discussing	
  similar	
  topics.	
  But	
  when	
  you	
  do	
  a	
  search	
  in	
  a	
  library	
  catalog,	
  writings	
  
that	
  are	
  part	
  of	
  many	
  different	
  conversations	
  are	
  all	
  jumbled	
  together	
  in	
  the	
  results.	
  It’s	
  like	
  being	
  
thrown	
  into	
  one	
  big	
  room	
  where	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  scholars,	
  from	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  different	
  disciplines,	
  are	
  
talking	
  over	
  each	
  other	
  all	
  at	
  once.	
  Our	
  new	
  visualization	
  tool	
  aims	
  to	
  help	
  you	
  sort	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  
writings	
  into	
  the	
  separate	
  conversations	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  originated.	
  	
  

Scenarios	
  

Now	
  I	
  am	
  going	
  to	
  ask	
  you	
  to	
  try	
  doing	
  some	
  specific	
  tasks	
  using	
  3Search.	
  You	
  should	
  read	
  the	
  
instructions	
  aloud	
  for	
  all	
  tasks	
  individually	
  prior	
  to	
  beginning	
  each.	
  And	
  again,	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  possible,	
  
it	
  will	
  help	
  us	
  if	
  you	
  can	
  try	
  to	
  think	
  out	
  loud	
  as	
  you	
  go	
  along.	
   	
  

Please	
  begin	
  by	
  reading	
  the	
  first	
  scenario	
  aloud	
  and	
  then	
  begin	
  the	
  first	
  scenario.	
  If	
  you	
  are	
  unsure	
  
whether	
  you	
  finished	
  the	
  task	
  or	
  not,	
  please	
  ask	
  me.	
  I	
  can	
  confirm	
  if	
  the	
  task	
  has	
  been	
  completed.	
  
Once	
  you	
  are	
  done	
  with	
  Scenario	
  1,	
  please	
  continue	
  onto	
  Scenario	
  2	
  by	
  reading	
  it	
  aloud	
  and	
  then	
  
beginning	
  the	
  task.	
  Continue	
  this	
  process	
  until	
  all	
  scenarios	
  are	
  finished.	
  If	
  you	
  cannot	
  complete	
  a	
  
task,	
  please	
  be	
  honest	
  and	
  try	
  to	
  explain	
  briefly	
  why	
  you	
  were	
  unsuccessful	
  and	
  continue	
  to	
  the	
  
next.	
  	
  

1. Pretend	
  that	
  you	
  are	
  writing	
  a	
  paper	
  about	
  issues	
  related	
  to	
  privacy	
  and	
  the	
  Internet.	
  Do	
  a	
  
search	
  in	
  3Search	
  with	
  the	
  words	
  “privacy	
  Internet.”	
  

2. Please	
  select	
  the	
  first	
  WorldCat	
  result	
  and	
  attempt	
  to	
  determine	
  whether	
  you	
  have	
  access	
  
to	
  the	
  full	
  text	
  of	
  this	
  book.	
  If	
  not,	
  please	
  indicate	
  where	
  you	
  could	
  request	
  the	
  full	
  text	
  
through	
  the	
  InterLibrary	
  Loan	
  service.	
  

3. Go	
  back	
  to	
  your	
  initial	
  search	
  results.	
  Please	
  choose	
  “Explore	
  these	
  results”	
  of	
  the	
  EBSCO	
  
database	
  results.	
  Choose	
  an	
  article.	
  If	
  you	
  have	
  unlimited	
  texting,	
  have	
  the	
  article’s	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  JUNE	
  2015	
  

	
  

100	
  

information	
  texted	
  to	
  your	
  cell	
  phone.	
  Then,	
  add	
  the	
  article	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  list	
  for	
  future	
  
reference	
  throughout	
  this	
  project.	
  

4. Go	
  back	
  to	
  your	
  initial	
  search	
  results.	
  For	
  Grinnell	
  College’s	
  Collections	
  results,	
  click	
  on	
  the	
  
“Explore	
  these	
  results”	
  link.	
  Then	
  click	
  on	
  the	
  “Visualize	
  Results”	
  link	
  to	
  visualize	
  the	
  
results.	
  Which	
  disciplines	
  appear	
  to	
  have	
  the	
  greatest	
  interest	
  in	
  this	
  topic?	
  

5. When	
  privacy	
  and	
  the	
  Internet	
  are	
  discussed	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  law,	
  what	
  are	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
topics	
  that	
  are	
  frequently	
  covered	
  in	
  these	
  discussions?	
  

6. One	
  specific	
  topic	
  you	
  are	
  considering	
  is	
  the	
  legal	
  issues	
  around	
  libel	
  and	
  slander	
  on	
  the	
  
Internet.	
  How	
  many	
  resources	
  do	
  the	
  libraries	
  have	
  on	
  that	
  specific	
  topic?	
  

7. Click	
  on	
  “Q	
  –	
  Science,”	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  results	
  authored	
  by	
  theoretical	
  computer	
  scientists.	
  Based	
  
on	
  these	
  results,	
  what	
  are	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  topics	
  that	
  are	
  frequently	
  covered	
  in	
  their	
  
discussions	
  when	
  these	
  computer	
  scientists	
  discuss	
  privacy	
  and	
  the	
  Internet?	
  

8. Pretend	
  that	
  you	
  are	
  writing	
  this	
  paper	
  for	
  a	
  computer	
  science	
  class	
  and	
  you	
  are	
  supposed	
  
to	
  address	
  your	
  topic	
  from	
  a	
  computer	
  science	
  perspective.	
  Please	
  narrow	
  your	
  results	
  to	
  
only	
  show	
  results	
  that	
  are	
  in	
  the	
  format	
  of	
  a	
  book.	
  Based	
  on	
  this	
  new	
  visualization,	
  what	
  
might	
  be	
  some	
  good	
  topics	
  to	
  consider?	
  

9. Add	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  books	
  to	
  the	
  list	
  you	
  created	
  in	
  step	
  3.	
  Please	
  email	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  items	
  on	
  this	
  
list	
  to	
  yourself.	
  

Debriefing	
  

Thank	
  you.	
  That	
  is	
  it	
  for	
  the	
  computer	
  tasks.	
  I	
  have	
  a	
  few	
  quick	
  questions	
  for	
  you	
  now	
  that	
  you	
  
have	
  gotten	
  a	
  chance	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  site.	
  

1. What	
  do	
  you	
  think	
  about	
  3Search?	
  Is	
  it	
  something	
  that	
  you	
  would	
  use?	
  Why	
  or	
  why	
  not?	
  

2. What	
  is	
  your	
  favorite	
  thing	
  about	
  3Search?	
  

3. What	
  is	
  your	
  least	
  favorite	
  thing	
  about	
  3Search?	
  

4. Did	
  you	
  find	
  the	
  visualization	
  function	
  useful?	
  Why	
  or	
  why	
  not?	
  

5. Do	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  recommendations	
  for	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  way	
  this	
  site	
  looks	
  or	
  works?	
  

	
   	
  



	
  

EXPLORATORY	
  SUBJECT	
  SEARCHING	
  IN	
  LIBRARY	
  CATALOGS:	
  RECLAIMING	
  THE	
  VISION	
  |	
  BAUDER	
  AND	
  LANGE	
  
doi:	
  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5888	
  

101	
  

REFERENCES	
  
	
  
1.	
  	
   Elaine	
  Svenonius,	
  “Use	
  of	
  Classification	
  in	
  Online	
  Retrieval,”	
  Library	
  Resources	
  &	
  Technical	
  

Services	
  27,	
  no.	
  1	
  (1983):	
  76–80,	
  	
  http://alcts.ala.org/lrts/lrtsv25no1.pdf.	
  	
  

2.	
  	
   Pauline	
  A.	
  Cochrane,	
  “Subject	
  Access—Free	
  or	
  Controlled?	
  The	
  Case	
  of	
  Papua	
  New	
  Guinea,”	
  in	
  
Redesign	
  of	
  Catalogs	
  and	
  Indexes	
  for	
  Improved	
  Online	
  Subject	
  Access:	
  Selected	
  Papers	
  of	
  Pauline	
  
A.	
  Cochrane	
  (Phoenix:	
  Oryx,	
  1985),	
  275.	
  Previously	
  published	
  in	
  Online	
  Public	
  Access	
  to	
  Library	
  
Files:	
  Conference	
  Proceedings:	
  The	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  a	
  Conference	
  Held	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Bath,	
  3–
5	
  September	
  1984	
  (Oxford:	
  Elsevier,	
  1985).	
  

3.	
  	
   Marcia	
  Bates,	
  “Subject	
  Access	
  in	
  Online	
  Catalogs:	
  A	
  Design	
  Model,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  
Society	
  for	
  Information	
  Science	
  37,	
  no.	
  6	
  (1986):	
  363,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-­‐
4571(198611)37:6<357::AID-­‐ASI1>3.0.CO;2-­‐H	
  

4.	
  	
   Charles	
  Ammi	
  Cutter,	
  Rules	
  for	
  a	
  Printed	
  Dictionary	
  Catalog	
  (Washington,	
  DC:	
  Government	
  
Printing	
  Office,	
  1876).	
  

5.	
  	
   David	
  Ward,	
  Jim	
  Hahn,	
  and	
  Kirsten	
  Feist,	
  “Autocomplete	
  as	
  a	
  Research	
  Tool:	
  A	
  Study	
  on	
  
Providing	
  Search	
  Suggestions,”	
  Information	
  Technology	
  &	
  Libraries	
  31,	
  no.	
  4	
  (2012):	
  6–19,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ital.v31i4.1930;	
  Suzanne	
  Chapman	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Manually	
  Classifying	
  
User	
  Search	
  Queries	
  on	
  an	
  Academic	
  Library	
  Web	
  Site,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  Web	
  Librarianship	
  7	
  (2013):	
  
401–21,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2013.842096.	
  

6.	
  	
   N.	
  J.	
  Belkin,	
  R.	
  N.	
  Oddy,	
  and	
  H.	
  M.	
  Brooks,	
  “ASK	
  for	
  Information	
  Retrieval:	
  Part	
  I.	
  Background	
  
and	
  Theory,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  Documentation	
  (1982):	
  61–71,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb026722;	
  
Christine	
  Borgman,	
  “Why	
  Are	
  Online	
  Catalogs	
  Still	
  Hard	
  to	
  Use?,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  
Society	
  for	
  Information	
  Science	
  (1996):	
  493–503,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-­‐
4571(199607)47:7<493::AID-­‐ASI3>3.0.CO;2-­‐P;	
  Karen	
  Markey,	
  “The	
  Online	
  Library	
  Catalog:	
  
Paradise	
  Lost	
  and	
  Paradise	
  Regained?,”	
  D-­‐Lib	
  Magazine	
  13,	
  no.	
  1/2	
  (2007),	
  
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/markey/01markey.html.	
  

7.	
  	
   Cochrane,	
  “Subject	
  Access—Free	
  or	
  Controlled?,”	
  275.	
  

8.	
  	
   Svenonius,	
  “Use	
  of	
  Classification	
  in	
  Online	
  Retrieval,”	
  78–79.	
  

9.	
  	
   Jasper	
  Kaizer	
  and	
  Anthony	
  Hodge,	
  “AquaBrowser	
  Library:	
  Search,	
  Discover,	
  Refine,”	
  Library	
  Hi	
  
Tech	
  News	
  (December	
  2005):	
  9–12,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07419050510644329.	
  

10.	
  	
  Kristen	
  Antelman,	
  Emily	
  Lynema,	
  and	
  Andrew	
  Pace,	
  “Toward	
  a	
  Twenty-­‐First	
  Century	
  Library	
  
Catalog,”	
  Information	
  Technology	
  &	
  Libraries	
  25,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2006):	
  128–39,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ital.v25i3.3342.	
  

11.	
  	
  Tod	
  Olson,	
  “Utility	
  of	
  a	
  Faceted	
  Catalog	
  for	
  Scholarly	
  Research,”	
  Library	
  Hi	
  Tech	
  (2007):	
  550–
61,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378830710840509;	
  Jody	
  Condit	
  Fagan,	
  “Usability	
  Studies	
  of	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  JUNE	
  2015	
  

	
  

102	
  

	
  
Faceted	
  Browsing:	
  A	
  Literature	
  Review,”	
  Information	
  Technology	
  and	
  Libraries	
  29,	
  no.	
  2	
  
(2010):	
  58-­‐66,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ital.v29i2.3144.	
  

12.	
  	
  Kathleen	
  Bauer,	
  “Yale	
  University	
  Library	
  VuFind	
  Test—Undergraduates,”	
  November	
  11,	
  2008,	
  
accessed	
  September	
  9,	
  2014,	
  
http://www.library.yale.edu/usability/studies/summary_undergraduate.doc.	
  

13.	
  	
  See,	
  for	
  example,	
  Ben	
  Shneiderman,	
  “The	
  Future	
  of	
  Interactive	
  Systems	
  and	
  the	
  Emergence	
  of	
  
Direct	
  Manipulation,”	
  Behaviour	
  &	
  Information	
  Technology	
  1	
  (1982):	
  237–56,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449298208914450;	
  Ben	
  Shneiderman,	
  “Dynamic	
  Queries	
  for	
  
Visual	
  Information	
  Seeking,”	
  IEEE	
  Software	
  11	
  (1994):	
  70–77,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/52.329404.	
  

14.	
  	
  See,	
  for	
  example,	
  Aleks	
  Aris	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Visual	
  Overviews	
  for	
  Discovering	
  Key	
  Papers	
  and	
  
Influences	
  Across	
  Research	
  Fronts,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Society	
  for	
  Information	
  Science	
  &	
  
Technology	
  60	
  (2009):	
  2219–28,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.v60:11;	
  Furu	
  Wei	
  et	
  al.,	
  
“TIARA:	
  A	
  Visual	
  Exploratory	
  Text	
  Analytic	
  System,”	
  in	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  the	
  16th	
  ACM	
  SIGKDD	
  
International	
  Conference	
  on	
  Knowledge	
  Discovery	
  and	
  Data	
  Mining	
  (Washington,	
  DC:	
  ACM,	
  
2010),	
  153–62,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1835804.1835827;	
  Cody	
  Dunne,	
  Ben	
  Shneiderman,	
  
Robert	
  Gove,	
  Judith	
  Klavans,	
  and	
  Bonnie	
  Dorr,	
  “Rapid	
  Understanding	
  of	
  Scientific	
  Paper	
  
Collections:	
  Integrating	
  Statistics,	
  Text	
  Analysis,	
  and	
  Visualization,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  
Society	
  for	
  Information	
  Science	
  &	
  Technology	
  63	
  (2012):	
  2351–69,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22652.	
  

15.	
  	
  The	
  most	
  notable	
  exception	
  is	
  Carrot2	
  (http://search.carrot2.org),	
  a	
  search	
  tool	
  that	
  will	
  
automatically	
  cluster	
  web	
  search	
  results	
  and	
  display	
  visualizations	
  of	
  those	
  clusters.	
  

16.	
  	
  Ben	
  Shneiderman,	
  “The	
  Eyes	
  Have	
  It:	
  A	
  Task	
  by	
  Data	
  Type	
  Taxonomy	
  for	
  Information	
  
Visualizations,”	
  September	
  1996,	
  accessed	
  April	
  27,	
  2014,	
  
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/5784/1/TR_96-­‐66.pdf.	
  

17.	
  	
  Ben	
  Shneiderman,	
  “Treemaps	
  for	
  Space-­‐Constrained	
  Visualization	
  of	
  Hierarchies:	
  Including	
  
the	
  History	
  of	
  Treemap	
  Research	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Maryland,”	
  Institute	
  for	
  Systems	
  
Research,	
  accessed	
  October	
  6,	
  2014,	
  http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/treemap-­‐history.	
  

18.	
  	
  To	
  explore	
  this	
  feature	
  in	
  our	
  catalog,	
  go	
  to	
  https://libweb.grinnell.edu/vufind/Search/Home,	
  
do	
  a	
  search,	
  and	
  click	
  on	
  the	
  “Visualize	
  Results”	
  link	
  in	
  the	
  upper	
  right.	
  

19.	
  	
  A	
  recent	
  Project	
  Information	
  Literacy	
  report	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  two	
  aspects	
  of	
  research	
  that	
  first-­‐
year	
  students	
  found	
  most	
  difficult	
  were	
  “coming	
  up	
  with	
  keywords	
  to	
  narrow	
  down	
  searches”	
  
and	
  “filtering	
  and	
  sorting	
  through	
  irrelevant	
  results	
  from	
  online	
  searches.”	
  Alison	
  J.	
  Head,	
  
Learning	
  the	
  Ropes:	
  How	
  Freshmen	
  Conduct	
  Course	
  Research	
  Once	
  They	
  Enter	
  College	
  (Project	
  
Information	
  Literacy,	
  December	
  5,	
  2013),	
  
http://projectinfolit.org/images/pdfs/pil_2013_freshmenstudy_fullreport.pdf,	
  15.