faceted metadata in image search & browsing using words to browse a thousand images
Post on 12-Feb-2016
52 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Faceted Metadata in Image Search & Browsing
Using Words to Browse a Thousand Images
Ka-Ping Yee, Kirsten Swearingen, Kevin Li, Marti Hearst
Group for User Interface ResearchUC Berkeley
CHI 2003
Research funded by:NSF CAREER Grant IIS-9984741
IBM Faculty Fellowship
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Outline• How do people search and browse for
images?• Current approaches:
– Keywords– Spatial similarity
• Our approach:– Hierarchical Faceted Metadata– Very careful UI design and testing
• Usability Study• Conclusions
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
How do people want to search and browse images?
Ethnographic studies of people who use images intensely:– Finding specific objects is easy
– Find images of the Empire State Building– Browsing is difficult– People want to use rich descriptions.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Ethnographic Study• Markkula & Sormunen ’00
– Journalists and newspaper editors– Choosing photos from a digital
archive• Searching for specific objects is trivial• Stressed a need for browsing• Photos need to deal with themes, places,
types of objects, views– Had access to a powerful interface,
but it had 40 entry forms and was generally hard to use; no one used it.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Markkula & Sormunen ’00
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Query Study• Armitage & Enser ’97
– Analyzed 1,749 queries submitted to 7 image and film archives
– Classified queries into a 3x4 facet matrix• Rio Carnivals: Geo Location x Kind of
Event– Concluded that users want to search
images according to combinations of topical categories.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Ethnographic Study• Ame Elliot ’02
– Architects• Common activities:
– Use images for inspiration• Browsing during early stages of design
– Collage making, sketching, pinning up on walls• This is different than illustrating powerpoint
• Maintain sketchbooks & shoeboxes of images– Young professionals have ~500, older ~5k
• No formal organization scheme– None of 10 architects interviewed about their image
collections used indexes• Do not like to use computers to find images
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Current Approaches to Image Search• Keyword based
– WebSeek (Smith and Jain ’97)– Commercial web image search
systems– Commercial image vendors (Corbis,
Getty)– Museum web sites
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Current Approaches to Image Search• Using Visual “Content”
– Extract color, texture, shape• QBIC (Flickner et al. ‘95)• Blobworld (Carson et al. ‘99)• Piction: images + text (Srihari et al. ’91 ’99)
– Two uses:• Show a clustered similarity space • Show those images similar to a selected one
– Usability studies:• Rodden et al.: a series of studies• Clusters don’t work; showing textual labels is
promising.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Rodden et al., CHI 2001
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Rodden et al., CHI 2001
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Rodden et al., CHI 2001
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
How Best to Support Browsing?• To support serendipity, want to
view images that are related along multiple dimensions.
• But clusters are not comprehensible.
• Instead, allow users to “steer” through the multi-dimensional category space in a flexible manner.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Some Challenges
• Users don’t like new search interfaces.
• How to show lots more information without overwhelming or confusing?
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Our Approach• Integrate the search seamlessly
into the information architecture.– Use proper HCI methodologies.
• Use faceted metadata:– More flexible than canned hyperlinks– Less complex than full search– Help users see where to go next and
return to what happened previously
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Metadata: data about dataFacets: orthogonal categories
Time/Date TopicGeoRegion
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Hierarchical Faceted Metadata Example: Biological Subject Headings
1. Anatomy [A] 2. Organisms [B] 3. Diseases [C] 4. Chemicals and Drugs [D] 5. Analytical, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment [E] 6. Psychiatry and Psychology [F] 7. Biological Sciences [G] 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. Anthropology, Education, Sociology and Social Phenomena [I] 10. Technology and Food and Beverages [J] 11. Humanities [K] 12. Information Science [L] 13. Persons [M] 14. Health Care [N] 15. Geographic Locations [Z]
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Hierarchical Faced Metadata
1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] 6. [F] …… 7. [G] 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. [I] 10. [J] 11. [K] 12. [L] 13. [M]
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Hierarchical Faceted Metadata
1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities
[A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] 9. [I] 10. [J] 11. [K] 12. [L] 13. [M]
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Hierarchical Faceted Metadata
1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities
[A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics 9. [I] Astronomy 10. [J] Nature 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures 13. [M] ….
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Hierarchical Faceted Metadata
1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities
[A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics Amplifiers 9. [I] Astronomy Electronics, Medical 10. [J] Nature Transducers 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures 13. [M] ….
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Hierarchical Faceted Metadata
1. Anatomy [A] Body Regions [A01] Abdomen [A01.047] 2. [B] Musculoskeletal System [A02] Back [A01.176] 3. [C] Digestive System [A03] Breast [A01.236] 4. [D] Respiratory System [A04] Extremities [A01.378] 5. [E] Urogenital System [A05] Head [A01.456] 6. [F] …… Neck [A01.598] 7. [G] …. 8. Physical Sciences [H] Electronics Amplifiers 9. [I] Astronomy Electronics, Medical 10. [J] Nature Transducers 11. [K] Time 12. [L] Weights and Measures Calibration 13. [M] …. Metric System Reference Standard
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
The Interface Design• Chess metaphor
– Opening– Middle game– End game
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
The Interface Design• Tightly Integrated Search• Supports Expand as well as Refine• Dynamically Generated Pages
– Paths can be taken in any order• Consistent Color Coding• Consistent Backup and
Bookmarking• Standard HTML
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
What is Tricky About This?• It is easy to do it poorly
– Yahoo directory structure• It is hard to be not overwhelming
– Most users prefer simplicity unless complexity really makes a difference
• It is hard to “make it flow”– Can it feel like “browsing the
shelves”?
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Project History• Identify Target Population
– Architects, city planners• Needs assessment.
– Interviewed architects and conducted contextual inquiries. • Lo-fi prototyping.
– Showed paper prototype to 3 professional architects.• Design / Study Round 1.
– Simple interactive version. Users liked metadata idea.• Design / Study Round 2:
– Developed 4 different detailed versions; evaluated with 11 architects; results somewhat positive but many problems identified. Matrix emerged as a good idea.
• Metadata revision. – Compressed and simplified the metadata hierarchies
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Project History• Design / Study Round 3.
– New version based on results of Round 2– Highly positive user response
• Identified new user population/collection– Students and scholars of art history– Fine arts images
• Study Round 4– Compare the metadata system to a strong,
representative baseline
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
New Usability Study• Participants & Collection
– 32 Art History Students– ~35,000 images from SF Fine Arts Museum
• Study Design– Within-subjects
• Each participant sees both interfaces• Balanced in terms of order and tasks
– Participants assess each interface after use– Afterwards they compare them directly
• Data recorded in behavior logs, server logs, paper-surveys; one or two experienced testers at each trial.
• Used 9 point Likert scales.• Session took about 1.5 hours; pay was $15/hour
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
The Baseline System• Floogle• Take the best of the existing
keyword-based image search systems
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Comparison of Common Image Search Systems
System Collection
# Results /page
Categories?
# Familiar
Google Web 20 No 27AltaVista Web 15 No 8Corbis Photos 9-36 No 8Getty Photos,
Art12-90 Yes 6
MS Office
Photos, Clip art
6-100 Yes N/A
Thinker Fine arts images
10 Yes 4
BASELINE
Fine arts images
40 Yes N/A
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
sword
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Evaluation Quandary• How to assess the success of
browsing?– Timing is usually not a good indicator– People often spend longer when
browsing is going well.• Not the case for directed search
– Can look for comprehensiveness and correctness (precision and recall) …
– … But subjective measures seem to be most important here.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Hypotheses• We attempted to design tasks to test the
following hypotheses:– Participants will experience greater search
satisfaction, feel greater confidence in the results, produce higher recall, and encounter fewer dead ends using FC over Baseline
– FC will perceived to be more useful and flexible than Baseline
– Participants will feel more familiar with the contents of the collection after using FC
– Participants will use FC to create multi-faceted queries
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Four Types of Tasks– Unstructured (3): Search for images of interest – Structured Task (11-14): Gather materials for
an art history essay on a given topic, e.g.• Find all woodcuts created in the US• Choose the decade with the most• Select one of the artists in this periods and show all
of their woodcuts• Choose a subject depicted in these works and find
another artist who treated the same subject in a different way.
– Structured Task (10): compare related images• Find images by artists from 2 different countries that
depict conflict between groups.– Unstructured (5): search for images of interest
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Other Points• Participants were NOT walked through the
interfaces.• The wording of Task 2 reflected the metadata;
not the case for Task 3• Within tasks, queries were not different in
difficulty (t’s<1.7, p >0.05 according to post-task questions)
• Flamenco is and order of magnitude slower than Floogle on average.– In task 2 users were allowed 3 more minutes in FC
than in Baseline.– Time spent in tasks 2 and 3 were significantly longer in
FC (about 2 min more).
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Results• Participants felt significantly more confident
they had found all relevant images using FC (Task 2: t(62)=2.18, p<.05; Task 3: t(62)=2.03, p<.05)
• Participants felt significantly more satisfied with the results (Task 2: t(62)=3.78, p<.001; Task 3: t(62)=2.03, p<.05)
• Recall scores:– Task2a: In Baseline 57% of participants found all
relevant results, in FC 81% found all.– Task 2b: In Baseline 21% found all relevant, in FC
77% found all.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Post-Interface Assessments
All significant at p<.05 except simple and overwhelming
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Perceived Uses of InterfacesWhat is interface useful for?
6.44
5.475.91
4.91
7.97 7.91
6.646.16
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Useful for mycoursework
Useful forexploring anunfamiliarcollection
Useful for findinga particular image
Useful for seeingrelationships b/w
images
SHASTA
DENALI
Baseline
FC
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Post-Test Comparison
15 16
2 30
1 29
4 28
8 23
6 24
28 3
1 31
2 29
FCBaseline
Find images of rosesFind all works from a given periodFind pictures by 2 artists in same media
Which Interface Preferable For:
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Post-Test Comparison
15 16
2 30
1 29
4 28
8 23
6 24
28 3
1 31
2 29
FCBaseline
Overall Assessment:More useful for your tasks
Easiest to useMost flexible
More likely to result in dead endsHelped you learn more
Overall preference
Find images of rosesFind all works from a given periodFind pictures by 2 artists in same media
Which Interface Preferable For:
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Facet Usage• Facets driven largely by task content
– Multiple facets 45% of time in structured tasks• For unstructured tasks,
– Artists (17%)– Date (15%)– Location (15%)– Others ranged from 5-12%– Multiple facets 19% of time
• From end game, expansion from– Artists (39%)– Media (29%)– Shapes (19%)
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Qualitative Observations• Baseline:
– Simplicity, similarity to Google a plus– Also noted the usefulness of the category links
• FC:– Starting page “well-organized”, gave “ideas for what to
search for”– Query previews were commented on explicitly by 9
participants– Commented on matrix prompting where to go next
• 3 were confused about what the matrix shows– Generally liked the grouping and organizing– End game links seemed useful; 9 explicitly remarked
positively on the guidance provided there.– Often get requests to use the system in future
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Study Results Summary• Strongly positive results for the faceted
metadata interface.• Moderate use of multiple facets.• Strong preference over the current state
of the art.– Chair of Architecture Dept: “It felt like I was
browsing the shelves!”– This kind of enthusiasm is not seen in
similarity-based image search interfaces.• Hypotheses are supported.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Implementation• All open source code
– Mysql database– Python web server (Webkit)– Python code– Lucene search engine (java)
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Metadata Availability• Many collections already have rich
metadata associated with them.• Automated methods are
improving.• This tool may be helpful for
resolving metadata creation wars.
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Summary• Usability studies done on 3 collections:
– Recipes: 13,000 items– Architecture Images: 40,000 items– Fine Arts Images: 35,000 items
• Conclusions:– Users like and are successful with the
dynamic faceted hierarchical metadata, especially for browsing tasks
– Very positive results, in contrast with studies on earlier iterations
– Note: it seems you have to care about the contents of the collection to like the interface
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Other Domains• Applying this to
– Text• Tobacco Documents Archives• Medline biomedical texts
– Products/Catalogs• Don’t have a collection; would like one
M. Hearst Faceted Metadata in Search
Future Work
• What about information visualization?
• How to integrate with relevance feedback (more like this)?
• How to incorporate user preferences and past behavior?
• How to combine facets to reflect tasks?
65
Thanks to:
Andrea SahliRashmi Sinha
NSF CAREER Grant IIS-9984741IBM Faculty Fellowship
Try the Demo:flamenco.berkeley.edu
top related