|
|
APPENDIX
A
Definitions
Card sorting. “[The] sorting [of] a series of cards, each
labeled with a piece of content or functionality, into groups that make sense
to users or participants” (Mauer
& Warfel, 2002, p.2).
Category or classification. “Putting a number of things into a smaller
number of groups and giving a rule
by which such allocation is made” (Coxon, 1999). “A category stands by itself
as a conceptual element of theory, [categories] are concepts indicated by the
data and not the data itself” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.36).
Characteristic. “A definable or measurable feature of a process,
product, or variable” (Six Sigma Qualtec, 2005). “A distinctive mark, trait,
or feature; a distinguishing or essential peculiarity or quality” (Oxford
English Dictionary, 2005a).
Closed sorting. “[A card sorting methodology] in which the
groupings are defined by the researcher and the subject is putting object cards
into the defined groups” (Deaton, 2002, p.4).
Conceptual analysis. “Traditionally, content analysis has most often
been thought of in terms of conceptual analysis. In conceptual analysis, a
concept is chosen for examination, and the analysis involves quantifying and
tallying its presence … The focus is on looking at the occurrence of selected terms
within a text or texts, although the terms
may be implicit as well as explicit. While explicit terms obviously are easy
to identify, coding for implicit terms and deciding their level of
implication is complicated by the need to base judgments on a somewhat
subjective system. To attempt to limit the subjectivity, then (as well as to
limit problems of reliability and validity), coding such implicit terms
usually involves the use of either a specialized dictionary or contextual
translation rules” (Palmquist, et al. 2005).
Constant comparative method. “[A research methodology that utilizes] joint
coding and analysis [to] generate theory systematically [by] using explicit coding
and analytic procedures” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 102).
Existence or Frequency. “This is a key
question in the coding process. The
researcher must decide if he/she is going to count a concept only once, for
existence, no matter how many times it appears, or if he/she will count it
each time it occurs. For example, ‘damn’ could be counted once, even though it
appears 50 times, or it could be
counted all 50 times. The latter measurement may be interested in how many
times it occurs and what that indicates, whereas the former may simply
looking for existence, period” (Palmquist, et. al, 2005).
Frame of reference. “A set of
standards, beliefs, or assumptions governing perceptual or logical evaluation
or social behaviour” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2005b)
Open sorting. “[A card sorting methodology] in which subjects
can determine their own groupings by first sorting the cards and then labeling the resulting piles” (Deaton, 2002,
p.4).
Information architecture. “[Information architecture is] the combination
of organization, labeling, and navigation schemes within an information system”
(Morville & Rosenfeld, 2001,
p.4).
Interactive concept choice. “One must determine whether to code only from
a pre-defined set of concepts and categories, or if one will develop some or
all of these during the coding process. For example, using a predefined set,
Horton would code only for profane
language. But, if Horton coded interactively, she may have decided to
half-way through the process that the text warranted coding for profane
gestures, as well” (Palmquist, et. al, 2005).
Irrelevant information. “One must decide
what to do with the information in
the text that is not coded. One’s options include either deleting or skipping
over unwanted material, or viewing all information as relevant and important and
using it to reexamine, reassess and perhaps even alter the one’s coding scheme”
(Palmquist, et. al, 2005).
Level of generalization. “A researcher must
decide whether concepts are to be coded exactly as they appear, or if they
can be recorded in some altered or collapsed form. Using Horton as an example
again, she could code profanity individually
and code ‘damn’
and ‘dammit’ as two separate concepts. Or, by generalizing their meaning,
i.e. they both express the same idea, she could group them together as one item,
i.e. ‘damn words’” (Palmquist, et. al, 2005).
Likert scale. “A Likert scale is used to measure attitudes, preferences, and
subjective reactions. In software evaluation, we can often objectively
measure efficiency and effectiveness with performance metrics such as time
taken or errors made. Likert scales and other attitudinal scales help get at
the emotional and preferential responses people have to the design” (Usability
First, n.d.).
Practitioner. In the context of this study, the term
practitioner (s) is used as an inclusive term that collectively describes
information architects, usability specialists, usability engineers, website
designers, human computer interaction specialists, and other persons or roles
whose interests or responsibilities include the design and/or testing of
information architectures. Although not specifically defined in the
literature, the term practitioner is commonly used in the literature reviewed
in this study (Hannah, 2005).
Property. “[A property is] a conceptual aspect or
element of a category. [Properties] are concepts indicated by the data, and
not the data itself” (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967, p.36).
Level of analysis. “Chosen by
determining which word, set of words, or phrases will constitute a concept.
According to Carley, 100-500 concepts is generally sufficient when coding for
a specific topic, but this number of course varies on a case by case basis”
(Palmquist, et. al, 2005).
Mental model. “A group or network of interrelated concepts
that reflect conscious or subconscious perceptions of reality. These internal
mental networks of meaning are constructed as people draw inferences and
gather information about the world” (Palmquist, et.
al, 2005).
Qualitative data. “…Qualitative
researchers tend to select a few participants who can best shed light on the
phenomenon under investigation. Both verbal data (interview comments,
documents, field notes) and nonverbal data (drawings, photographs, videotapes) may be collected” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001, p. 102).
Quantitative data. “Quantitative
researchers identify one or a few variables that they intend to study and
then collect data specifically related to those variables. Specific methods
of measuring each variable are identified and developed, with attention to
the validity and reliability of the
measurement instruments. Data are collected from a population, or from one or
more large samples that represent the population, in a form that is easily
converted to numerical indices” (Leedy
& Ormrod, 2001, p. 102).
Selective reduction. “The central idea
of content analysis. Text is reduced to categories consisting of a word, set
of words or phrases, on which the researcher can focus. Specific words or
patterns are indicative of the research question and determine levels of
analysis and generalization” (Palmquist, et.
al, 2005).
Translation rules. “If one decides to
generalize concepts during coding, then one must develop a set of rules by
which less general concepts will be translated into more general ones. This doesn’t
involve simple generalization, for
example, as with ‘damn’ and ‘dammit’ but requires one to determine, from a given set
of concepts, what concepts are missing. When dealing with the idea of profanity,
one must decide what to do with the concept ‘dang it,’ which is generally thought to imply ‘damn it.’ The
researcher must make this distinction, i.e. make this implicit concept
explicit, and then code for the frequency of its occurrence. This decision
results in the construction of a translation rule, which instructs the researcher to code for the concept ‘dang it’ in a certain
way” (Palmquist, et. al, 2005).
Theoretical sampling. “The process of data collection for generating
theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes … data and
decides what data to collect next
and where to find them, in order to develop … theory as it emerges” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 45)
User Centered Design (UCD). “In broad terms, user-centered design (UCD) is
a design philosophy in which the needs, wants and limitations of the end user of a computer product or computer
interface are given extensive attention at each stage of the design process.
User-centered design can be characterized as a multi-stage problem solving
process that not only requires designers to analyze and foresee how users are
likely to use an interface, but to test the validity of their assumptions
with regards to user behavior in real life” (Wikopedia, 2005a).
|
