tried and tested? evaluating data entry consistency in the component model prototype brit hopmann,...

17
Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Upload: alexia-hunt

Post on 13-Jan-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Tried and Tested?Evaluating Data Entry Consistencyin the Component Model Prototype

Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Page 2: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Presentation

• Background & aim consistency check

• Images & data

• Analysis & results (in 3 steps)

• Problems & possible solutions

• Conclusion & discussion

data entry

Page 3: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Background & aim consistency check

Background

• Problems with data entry ambiguity

• Consequences: decreased recall and precision

Aim

• Check and improve data entry consistency

• Solutions for existing problems?

• Changes?

data entry

Page 4: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Images

Page 5: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Data

• 5 images

• 25 features (+ 2 discarded)

• 6 respondents

Analysis in 3 steps

• Categorizing the answers (per image / per feature)

• Analysis per image and per feature

• Problems and possible solutions

Analysis

Page 6: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Analysis – step 1

example: answers for image4

Page 7: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Analysis – step 1

Categorizing the answers (per image / per feature)

3 categories

category consistency

times percentage

no problem 57 45,6%

indecisive 16 12,8%

problem 52 41,6%

There were many problematic descriptions.

Page 8: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Analysis – step 2

Summary per watermark (5 images)

None of the images was described unanimously.

image no prob ≈ problem

per image

image 1 15 2 8 fine

image 2 13 3 9 fine

image 3 10 3 12 problematic

image 4 11 3 11 indecisive (≈)

image 5 8 5 12 problematic

total 57 16 52

Page 9: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Analysis – step 2

Summary per feature (25 features + 2 discarded)

Described consistently 5-7 features*

3 of 5 images not consistently described 10-8 features*

* Depending on quality of definitions

Page 10: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Analysis – step 3

How problematic are specific features?

1. Is or might the feature be problematic with other watermarks?

2. What caused the problem and can it be solved easily?

-> image quality, definition, subjective description

3. What is the distinctive value of a particular feature?

4. Is there a possible solution?

5. Which problems will remain problematic after having applied a specific solution?

Page 11: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Analysis – step 3

What could contribute to a solution?

• Grouping

• Allow assigning multiple features

• Drawback: increased decision effort

• Extra tool

• For instance graphical indicator of angle

• Drawback: exceptions such as rotated scans

• Clarify definitions

• For instance description of additional elements

• Relatively straightforward to apply

• Otherwise

Page 12: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Crucial Question

Which features will still pose a problem with a particular solution applied?

Page 13: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Conclusion

Problems that will eventually remain

• Eyes: alignment, distance, position

• Horns: endings, orientation, inside

Page 14: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Conclusion

Remaining problems

• Ears: endings, roundness, width

• Eyes: shape

• Head: shape

• In-between horns: shape

• Nose: concomitance with other elements, shape

Page 15: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Discussion

Features that evoke subjective descriptions

(shape!) cause problems

Thinking about possible changes in the model

• Clarify certain issues: clear definitions, instruction

• Expand model: extra tool, grouping

• Simplify model: adjust or take out features

data

Reconsider role of component model within Bernstein

Page 16: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?

Discussion

Questions and Comments?

Page 17: Tried and Tested? Evaluating Data Entry Consistency in the Component Model Prototype Brit Hopmann, July 1, 2008

Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands

Tried and Tested?