Cited by 19Usability and User Interface DesignData Visualization and AnalyticsExpert finding and Q&A systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TaggedComments: promoting and integrating user comments in online application tutorials

Bunt, Andrea, Dubois, Patrick, Lafreniere, Ben, Terry, Michael A., Cormack, David T.·2014·Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

User comments posted to popular online tutorials constitute a rich additional source of information for readers, yet current designs for displaying user comments on tutorial webpages do little to support their use. Instead, comments are separated from the tutorial content they reference and tend to be ordered according to post date. We propose and evaluate the TaggedComments system, a new approach to displaying comments that users post to online tutorials. Using tags supplied by commenters, TaggedComments seeks to enhance the role of user comments by 1) improving their visibility, 2) allowing users to personalize their use of the comments according to their particular information needs, and 3) providing direct access to potentially helpful comments from the tutorial content. A laboratory evaluation with 16 participants shows that, in comparison to the standard comment layout, TaggedComments significantly improves users' subjective impressions of comment utility when interacting with Photoshop tutorials.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2556288.2557118

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior research on improving software learning has not typically considered older adults as target users.

    “There is much research on how to improve the software learning experience for users [8,10,29,42,46,68], but this prior work has not typically considered older adults as target users.”
  • Prior research on improving software learning has not typically considered older adults as target users.

    “There is much research on how to improve the software learning experience for users [8,10,29,42,46,68], but this prior work has not typically considered older adults as target users.”
  • There is a wide body of work on providing users with in-context help, including social mechanisms that involve other software users.

    “There is a wide body of work on providing users with in-context help, including social mechanisms that involve other software users (e.g., [10,37]).”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bunt, A., Dubois, P., Lafreniere, B., Terry, M. A., & Cormack, D. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-04-26
Pages
4037-4046
OpenAlex
W2168189845
Cited by
19
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.54
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
Keywords
online comments, online tutorials, tagging, information visualization, personalized information access, user interface design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review