Designing Information Systems for User Abilities and Tasks: An Experimental Study

Allen, Bryce

doi:10.1108/eb024663

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following standard practices to dichotomise a continuous variable (e.g. Allen, 1998;Cortese and Lustria, 2012;Gurrea et al, 2013), a median-split was used to classify answerers as either reputable or novice.…”

Section: Oir 391mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the effectiveness of answers in Yahoo! Answers

Chua

Banerjee

2015

Online Information Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the ways in which effectiveness of answers in Yahoo! Answers, one of the largest community question answering sites (CQAs), is related to question types and answerer reputation. Effective answers are defined as those that are detailed, readable, superior in quality and contributed promptly. Five question types that were studied include factoid, list, definition, complex interactive and opinion. Answerer reputation refers to the past track record of answerers in the community. Design/methodology/approach – The data set comprises 1,459 answers posted in Yahoo! Answers in response to 464 questions that were distributed across the five question types. The analysis was done using factorial analysis of variance. Findings – The results indicate that factoid, definition and opinion questions are comparable in attracting high quality as well as readable answers. Although reputed answerers generally fared better in offering detailed and high-quality answers, novices were found to submit more readable responses. Moreover, novices were more prompt in answering factoid, list and definition questions. Originality/value – By analysing variations in answer effectiveness with a twin focus on question types and answerer reputation, this study explores a strand of CQA research that has hitherto received limited attention. The findings offer insights to users and designers of CQAs.

show abstract

Section: Oir 391mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the effectiveness of answers in Yahoo! Answers

Chua

Banerjee

2015

Online Information Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach was taken to test the limits of the machinery. Additional Pro residues were incorporated at positions 4,6,14,16,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. In these variants, ring 1 or 2 would contain two or three Pro residues.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the corresponding processing enzymes allow access to complicated peptide topologies that are not readily accessible by synthetic means. 1,[6][7][8]30 These features make this superfamily of peptidic natural products interesting for synthetic biology and bioengineering applications. Examples can be found in the form of epitope grafting studies (using e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Flexibility of the Prochlorosin 2.8 Scaffold for Bioengineering Applications

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cyclization is a common strategy to confer proteolytic resistance to peptide scaffolds. Thus, cyclic peptides have been the focus of extensive bioengineering efforts. Ribosomally synthesized and posttranslationally-modified peptides (RiPPs) are a superfamily of peptidic natural products that often contain macrocycles. In the RiPP family of lanthipeptides, macrocyclization is accomplished through formation of thioether crosslinks between cysteines and dehydrated serines/threonines. The recent production of lanthipeptide libraries and development of methods to display lanthipeptides on yeast or phage highlights their potential for bioengineering and synthetic biology. In this regard, the prochlorosins are especially promising as the corresponding class II lanthipeptide synthetase ProcM matures numerous precursor peptides with diverse core peptide sequences. To facilitate future bioengineering projects, one of its native substrates, ProcA2.8, was subjected in this study to in-depth mutational analysis to test the limitations of ProcM-mediated cyclization. Alanine scan mutagenesis was performed on all residues within the two rings, and multiple prolines were introduced at various positions. Moreover, mutation, deletion, and insertion of residues in the region linking the two lanthionine rings was tested. Additional residues were also introduced or deleted from either ring, and inversion of ring forming residues was attempted to generate diastereomers. The findings were used for epitope grafting of the RGD integrin binding epitope within prochlorosin 2.8, resulting in a low nanomolar affinity binder of the αvβ3 integrin that was more stable towards proteolysis and displayed higher affinity than the linear counterpart.

show abstract

“…Regarding differences in search behaviors and performance, researchers have looked at individual factors, such as personal experiences (e.g., background, gender, Internet experience, and familiarity), personal cognition (e.g., domain knowledge, reading skill, spatial ability, problem-solving ability, metacognition, and understanding of the search task), personal approaches (e.g., study approaches, perceptions of and preferred approaches to web-based information seeking, thinking style, and cognitive style), environmental factors (e.g., search engines and metadata), and task types (e.g., locating web sites versus locating information, closed-ended versus open-ended) (Albertson, 2010b;Allen, 1998Allen, , 2000Bilal & Kirby, 2002;Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis & Vermetten, 2005;Chiu, 2006;Choi, 2010;Ford, Miller, & Moss, 2005;Hsieh-Yee, 2001;Kao, Lei & Sun, 2008;Kim, 2008;Kim & Allen, 2002;Lei, Kao, Lin & Sun, 2009;Lei, Lin and Sun, 2013;Park & Black, 2007;Rouet, 2003;Sun, Ye, Hsieh, 2014;Zhou, 2014). These studies demonstrate that despite constant advancement in the platform and index of search engines, the individual differences between users still play a crucial role in determining the success of a search.…”

Section: Individual Differences In Web Searchesmentioning

confidence: 99%