Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Herwig Rehatschek

dblp:98/5761 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Multimedia analysis and retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Multimedia analysis and retrieval › multimedia browsing
video browsing
0.112009
Comparing fact finding tasks and user survey for evaluating a video browsing tool · ACM Multimedia 2009
Multimedia analysis and retrieval
interactive retrieval
0.012009
Comparing fact finding tasks and user survey for evaluating a video browsing tool · ACM Multimedia 2009

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user survey · 0.1fact finding tasks · 0.1TRECVID · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Comparing fact finding tasks and user survey for evaluating a video browsing tool
abstract
There are still no established methods for the evaluation of browsing and exploratory search tools. In the (multimedia) information retrieval community evaluations following the Cranfield paradigm (as e.g. used in TRECVID) have been widely adopted. We have applied two TRECVID style fact finding approaches (retrieval and question answering tasks) and a user survey to the evaluation of a video browsing tool. We analyze the correlation between the results of the different methods, whether different aspects can be evaluated independently with the survey, and if a learning effect can be measured with the different methods. The results show that the retrieval task correlates better with the user experience according to the survey than the question answering tasks. It turns out that the survey rather measures the general user experience while different aspects of the usability cannot be analyzed independently.
Werner Bailer, Herwig Rehatschek
ACM Multimedia2