Personal Information Management mit dem Notizverwaltungs-Tool Evernote: Tagging- vs. Ordner-Strategie

Bauer, Mareike Fenja Personal Information Management mit dem Notizverwaltungs-Tool Evernote: Tagging- vs. Ordner-Strategie. Young Information Scientist, 2016, vol. 1. [Journal article (Unpaginated)]

[img] Text
YIS_1_2016_45_Bauer.pdf - Published version

Download (685kB)

English abstract

Objective — The goal of this study was to find preferences for tagging or for the use of folders in personal information management using the example of the note management tool “Evernote” and to identify motivating and demotivating factors which lead to the choice of tagging or folders. Methods — The study was conducted using a combination of content analysis, discourse analysis and social media monitoring. The web extraction tool “import.io” was applied to extract the data from an Evernote forum, and the analysis program “MAXQDA” was used to carry out data coding. Results — There was no significant preference for neither tagging nor the use of folders. Instead a preference for the combined use of these strategies was found. A variety of different motivations and demotivations became evident, some of them typical for the particular strategy and others influenced rather by the specific tool. Conclusion — The results of the study indicate that, apart from other factors, the choice of the strategy for personal information management is strongly affected by the software tool applied – in this case Evernote.

German abstract

Zielsetzung — In der vorliegenden Studie wird das persönliche Informationsmanagement mit der Software »Evernote« untersucht. Dabei soll der Frage nachgegangen werden, ob bei den Evernote-Nutzenden eine Präferenz für die Tagging- oder die Ordner-Strategie vorliegt und welche Motivationen bzw. Demotivationen dahinter liegen. Methoden — Bei der Untersuchung wurden Inhalts- und Diskursanalyse sowie Social Media Monitoring miteinander kombiniert. Untersucht wurden Foreneinträge, die mit dem Web-Extraktions-Tool »import.io« festgehalten und mit der Analysesoftware »MAXQDA« codiert wurden. Ergebnisse — Eine signifikante Präferenz in Bezug auf Tagging- oder Ordner-Strategie konnte nicht nachgewiesen werden, hingegen die Präferenz, beide Strategien in Kombination zu verwenden. Des weiteren konnten viele verschiedene Motivationen und Demotivationen gefunden werden, von denen einige system- und andere strategiebedingt waren. Schlussfolgerung — Gezeigt werden konnte, dass neben anderen Faktoren das eingesetzte Tool, in diesem Fall Evernote, die Wahl der Strategie für das Personal Information Management stark beeinflusst.

Item type: Journal article (Unpaginated)
Keywords: Personal Information Management, PIM, PIM-Tools, Tagging, Ordner, Folders, PIM-Strategie, PIM-Strategy, Evernote
Subjects: C. Users, literacy and reading. > CA. Use studies.
I. Information treatment for information services > ID. Knowledge representation.
I. Information treatment for information services > IZ. None of these, but in this section.
Depositing user: Otto Oberhauser
Date deposited: 13 Sep 2016 07:34
Last modified: 13 Sep 2016 07:34
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/29990

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Ames, M.; Naaman, M. (2007). Why we tag: Motivations for annotation in mobile and online media. In: CHI ’07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 28 April – 3 May 2007. New York, NY: ACM, S. 971–980. http://infolab.stanford.edu/~mor/research/chi2007-Ames-whyWeTag.pdf [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Bergman, O.; Gradovitch, N.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Beyth-Marom, R. (2013a). Folder versus tag preference in personal information management. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(10), S. 1995–2012.

Bergman, O.; Gradovitch, N.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Beyth-Marom, R. (2013b). Tagging personal information: A contrast between attitudes and behavior. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 50(1), S. 1–8. doi: 10.1002/meet.14505001029.

Boardman, R.; Sasse, A. M. (2004). „Stuff Goes into the Computer and Doesn’t Come Out“: A cross-tool study of personal information management. In: CHI’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004. New York, NY: ACM, S. 583–590. http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/~i385q/readings/Boardman(2004)-stuff_goes_in.pdf [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Civan, A.; Jones, W.; Klasnja, P.; Bruce, H. (2008). Better to organize personal information by folders or by tags? The devil is in the details. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 45(1), S. 1–13. doi: 10.1002/meet.2008.1450450214.

Dumais, S.; Cutrell, E.; Cadiz, J. u. a. (2003). Stuff i’ve seen: A system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In: SIGIR ’03: Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 28 – August 01, 2003. New York, NY: ACM, S. 72–79. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/sdumais/SISCore-SIGIR2003-Final.pdf [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Evernote Corporation (2015). Welche Systemlimits gibt es in Evernote? https://help.evernote.com/hc/de/articles/209005247 [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Evernote Corporation (2016). Erste Schritte mit Evernote für: Windows Desktop; Notiz erstellen und bearbeiten. https://evernote.com/intl/de/evernote/guide/windows/#3 [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Golder, S. A.; Huberman Bernardo, A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. In: Journal of Information Science 32(2), S. 198–208.

Jones, W. (2008). Keeping found things found: The study and practice of personal information management. Amsterdam und Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Jones, W.; Phuwanartnurak, A. J.; Gill, R.; Bruce, H. (2005). Don’t take my folders away! Organizing personal information to get things done. In: CHI EA ’05: CHI ’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, April 2–7, 2005. New York, NY: ACM, S. 1505–1508. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/2031 [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Lansdale, M. W. (1988). The psychology of personal information management. In: Applied Ergonomics 19(1), S. 55–66. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.394.2427&rep=rep1&type=pdf [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Pak, R.; Pautz, S.; Iden, R. (2007). Information organization and retrieval: A comparison of taxonomical and tagging systems. In: Cognitive Technology 12 (1), S. 31–44.

Quan, D.; Bakshi, K.; Huynh, D.; Karger, D. R. (2003). User interfaces for supporting multiple categorization. In: Human-computer interaction: INTERACT ’03; IFIP TC13 International conference on human-computer interaction, 1 st –5 th September 2003, Zurich, Switzerland. Hrsg. von Rauterberg, M. u. a. Amsterdam: IOS Press, S. 228–235. http://haystack.csail.mit.edu/papers/interact2003-multicat.pdf [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Rodden, K.; Leggett, M. (2010). Best of both worlds: Improving Gmail labels with the affordances of folders. In: CHI ’10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, April 10–15, 2010. New York, NY: ACM, S. 4587–4596. http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/de//pubs/archive/36334.pdf [besucht am 2. Juli 2016].

Teevan, J.; Capra, R.; Perez-Quinones, M. (2007). How people find personal information. In: Personal information management. Hrsg. von Jones, W. P.; Teevan, J. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, S. 22–34.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item