<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Enhanced Visualization for Web-Based Summaries</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Brent Wenerstrom</string-name>
          <email>brent.wenerstrom@louisville.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mehmed Kantardzic</string-name>
          <email>mmkant01@louisville.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Computer Eng. and Computer Science Dept., Duthie Center for Engineering</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Louisville, Kentucky 40292</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>For each search result presented by a search engine, a user has a choice to click through for more information or to skip the result. We aim to improve the accuracy of this click process by introducing a color-coding scheme built upon our improved summary text selection approach called ReClose. Color-coding adds an additional level of context to the text without requiring additional screen space. Our results showed an improvement in click precision from 66% when using Google summaries to 80% when using colorcoded ReClose summaries. Improvements in user click precision will lead to better user experiences, the more e cient nding of search results and higher con dence levels in search engine usage.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>Search engine usage has become a part of every day life for
internet users. Every time a search is conducted on Google
or Bing a list of search results is presented to the user. One of
the major challenges that users face as they search for that
needle of information in the Internet haystack is deciding
which of the search results presented is relevant to their
search needs and which are not. When conducting searches
for facts and information the choices are not always obvious.</p>
      <p>Each search result is composed of a title, a short text
summary and an abbreviated URL. The title usually is
revealing about the overall message of a web page. However,
it is written by the web content creator and may be a slogan
of a company or an advertising pitch, which can be
misleading. The URL can be very helpful when one is familiar with
the host contained in the URL, but many URLs encountered
are not familiar to us.</p>
      <p>
        The text summary is extracted from three possible
locations [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref4 ref9">9, 4, 13</xref>
        ]. 1) Spans of text may be taken directly
from the content of a web page. 2) It may come from the
HTML meta description. The meta description is
embedded in the HTML of a web page. It is not displayed to
users visiting a web site, but is usually a general
descripPermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee.
      </p>
      <p>Copyright 20XX ACM X-XXXXX-XX-X/XX/XX ...$10.00.
tion of a web page or web site hand written by the content
creator. 3) Lastly the text could come from the Open
Directory Project (http://www.dmoz.org). The Open Directory
Project is a community built directory of websites with a
number of short, human-written website summaries.</p>
      <p>
        When search results are presented to users, the user has
the task of deciding which results are relevant to their search
and which are not. Within information science it has been
found that as many as 80 factors contribute to the decision
of judge deciding which documents are relevant to a
particular search [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Users typically make this decision in a
matter of seconds. When a user decides to click on a search
result there are two possible outcomes that depend on a
user's expectations for that web page: 1) the user's
expectations were not met leading to disappointment or 2) the user's
expectations were met or exceeded resulting in satisfaction.
      </p>
      <p>Users may incorrectly skip relevant content missing out
on potentially important information, but it is the feeling
of disappointment (possibility 1) that will most negatively
a ect a search experience. We aim to improve the user's
accuracy in click decisions for the purpose of decreasing
occurrences of disappointment.</p>
      <p>As an example of the kinds of disappointment that may be
realized consider the search result to the query closeness
centrality pictured in Figure 1. Closeness centrality is a graph
theory measure used for ordering nodes. The search result
shown in Figure 1 has a title of \Social Network Analysis".
This page is dedicated to the analysis of social networks.
Closeness centrality as is shown in the summary is clearly
mentioned. One also nds an example description of
closeness centrality in a social network. One may expect that
this page contains a lengthy description of closeness
centrality followed by this example. However, clicking through to
the result page leads to Figure 2. The web page does
discuss social network analysis as would be expected by the
title, but there is only a single paragraph on closeness
centrality. This single paragraph only describes a brief example
barely longer than the text summary given by the search
result. This web page did not meet the previously detailed
expectations and would lead to disappointment on the part
of the searcher.</p>
      <p>The user in the previous search example would be aided
by the two main features of color-coded ReClose summaries.
First, keywords are highlighted with color depth to provide
global context rather than just the local context of one or
two sentences surrounding a keyword. This \global context"
refers to the extent of discussion on a web page containing
the query topic. In the previous example, the user would
have been aware before clicking that there were very few
occurrences of the terms \closeness" and \centrality" by visual
clues of color enhanced query keyword highlighting.</p>
      <p>Secondly, major departures from the main topics of a web
search are agged. If the main subject of a web page is
di erent from the intent of the search user, then a topic term
is shown in red. This warns the user that the keywords may
be peripheral to the main subject of the web page. Both
color depth and topic word agging are shown in this paper
to e ectively improve user click precision and decrease user
disappointment. This in turn will improve the e ciency of
the user and lead to better user experiences with the search
engine.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>RELATED WORKS</title>
      <p>
        The highlighting of keywords has been used in a number of
settings where users scan documents or lists of documents.
Highlighting attracts the user's attention to these keywords
using bolding, reverse video or coloring the background of
the text. In each case it has been shown to be useful to the
scanning and examination of documents and document lists
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        A number of useful approaches exist for highlighting
keywords. Baudisch et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] compresses highlighted documents
using Fishnet to a single screen for visual search. Byrd [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]
proposed the use of di erent colors for each keyword within
a single document, which also was used to designate location
of keywords on the scrollbar by color.
      </p>
      <p>
        Veerasamy and Belkin [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ] proposed a table of bar charts
to show term importance visually. Each row designated
a single document, each column represented a word. The
words selected included both query terms and terms used for
relevance feedback. Graham [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] presented Reader's Helper
that highlighted keywords both within a single document
and document lists. Each of the keywords was given a score
with a matching bar showing the strength of that score
visually.
      </p>
      <p>
        Kaugars [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] used thumbnails and zoomed views to show
keywords in context for a number of documents. Initially all
search results are displayed as web page thumbnails, with
keyword locations highlighted. A user may zoom to a level
where keywords are shown in context and other paragraphs
are compressed. Users may again zoom in again to view the
full, scrollable contents of a document.
      </p>
      <p>
        Hemmje et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ] presented Lyberworld, which displayed
documents in a three dimensional sphere with keywords shown
at the edge of the sphere. Documents were presented closest
to the keywords contained in those documents.
      </p>
      <p>
        Keyword highlighting has improved information retrieval
result scanning for more than 25 years [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]. Highlighting
has proved useful in several interfaces developed since that
time [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1, 2</xref>
        ]. However, no other research to the best of our
knowledge has proposed the use of color depth or warning
colors within summary text to provide additional context.
3.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>COLOR-CODED RECLOSE SUMMARIES</title>
      <p>
        The goal of color-coded ReClose summaries is to increase
the accuracy (precision) with which users click on search
results to nd relevant documents. Increasing accuracy will in
turn lead to fewer disappointments and a better user
experience. Color-coded ReClose summaries aim to improve upon
current search result summaries using three main parts. First,
we build upon our previous work on text summary
generation approach called ReClose [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. Second, we highlight
query keywords using variable shades of blue to show the
depth of usage of those query keywords on a web page.
Third, we display in red terms central to the web page's
topic which potentially di er from the topic of the keywords
searched for.
3.1
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>ReClose</title>
      <p>
        The ReClose approach [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] combines two sentence
rankings into a single summary with two parts. It combines the
bene ts of query-biased and query-independent summaries.
Query-biased summaries show keywords in context focusing
the summaries on content most relevant to search.
Queryindependent summaries provide an overview of a single
document.
      </p>
      <p>
        Query-independent summarization is achieved using
closeness centrality [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] of graph theory to rank sentences as
representative to the whole document. Closeness centrality ranks
the centrality of nodes in a graph with the highest rank going
to the node with the smallest average distance to all other
nodes. Documents are converted to graphs by turning each
sentence into a node, then comparing each sentence to each
other sentence using word overlap.
      </p>
      <p>The second part of the ReClose approach involves learning
from the summary generation techniques of the top ranking
search engines, namely Google, Yahoo and Bing. To
improve upon the query-biased summaries of current search
engines, we learn from the summaries generated by all three
top search engines. We generated training data by observing
which sentences were chosen by each of these search engines.
We trained a linear regression model to score sentences to
match the sentence selection of Google, Yahoo and Bing.
After training, a new document is split into sentences and each
sentence is ranked by the linear regression model. The top
ranking sentences are chosen to represent the query-biased
portion.</p>
      <p>In this way we now have a two part summary taking
advantage of both query-biased and query-independent
approaches to summary generation. Each portion of the
summary is labeled so that users of the summaries are aware of
the di erent intentions with each of the two text spans.
3.2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Color-Coded Keywords</title>
      <p>We color-code keywords to provide additional context about
the usage of keywords. The query-biased summaries of say
Google or Bing will provide one or two text spans generally
that show one or two usages of the keywords searched. In
this way the context on a scale of say plus or minus ten words
from the keywords are shown. Our color-coding of the
keywords adds depth to each keyword just as colors can provide
terrain depth on a topographical map. Many topographical
maps will provide a key that shows the elevation range of
the map and provide di erent colors for each subdivision of
elevation. This \color-coding" provides users of these maps a
more intuitive view than simply a set of contour lines to
understand depth. Our depth refers to the frequency of query
keywords on a web page. This gives a user a greater
appreciation for how long discussions involving the keywords may
be compared to other search results.</p>
      <p>The key used in our surveys is shown in \Select Color"
step of Figure 3. We count the frequency of each keyword
on a web page after the removal of stop words and use of
Porter stemming. Then for each possible frequency between
zero and 63 a di erent shade of blue is used. (A keyword
may be contained in a summary and not on a web page
if it is contained in the meta description but not the web
page's content). A diagram of color-coding query keywords
is shown in Figure 3. Now summaries of web pages that talk
at great lengths about say \canines" will be distinguishable
from a web page that has very little text which mentions
\canines".</p>
      <p>The exact colors used are in Table 1. We chose to use a
light blue (deep sky blue) for the smallest frequency value
of zero. Then to make the range between 0 and 30 more
pronounced we chose an intermediate, but fairly dark blue
(Egyptian blue) at a frequency of 30. A dark blue (Duke
blue) was used for a frequency of 63+ which was still
distinguishable from regular text in black. To calculate the
RGB values for frequencies in between these speci c values,
one divides the di erence in color values by the number of
di erent frequencies.</p>
      <p>It is unlikely that most users will be able to know exactly
what color represents which frequency, but it will be obvious
which summaries contain more frequent keywords. For
example in the summary in Figure 3 the keyword \database" is
more frequent in the document than the keyword \building".
It will also be obvious which end of the scale each keyword</p>
      <p>Once we have determined the most frequent term in a
document, we then consider all other top ranking documents
returned for the search (step 2). In our case we used the top
28 documents (not including the current document), since
this is the maximum number of documents returned through
Google's Web Search API (http://code.google.com/apis/
websearch/).</p>
      <p>The percentage of top ranking documents for the current
search containing the most frequent term is then
thresholded (step 3). We used a threshold of 60%. Terms that
occur in more than half of the top documents for a search
generally are highly related to the search terms. As an
example consider the terms by percentage for the query
algorithms. Terms above the 60% threshold include:
\algorithms" at 100%, \computer" at 80% and \number" at 60%
which are all related to algorithms. Examples of terms
below the threshold are \privacy", \course", \heap" and \2007"
with only \heap" being a term associated with algorithms.
Terms found in 60% of documents are both rare and highly
related.</p>
      <p>Terms that do not meet the threshold will be displayed
in the summary colored red. For example see the summary
in Figure 4 where the term \JDBC" is agged. JDBC refers
to one method in Java for connecting to databases. It is
distantly related to the query building a database, but clearly
shows that this particular document is less focused on the
building of the database, and more focused on Java related
issues.</p>
      <p>After we have determined that a term should be agged
for a particular summary, we must ensure that the agged
term is included in the summary. To accomplish this we
lter the query-independent sentence ranking to only include
sentences including the agged terms. This ensures that the
agged term will appear in at least one sentence included in
the summary.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS</title>
      <p>We hypothesize that color-coding ReClose generated
summaries that users will have more accurate expectations of
the web pages summarized. To test this we created a survey
that allow us to compare the accuracy of user expectations
based on summaries. We mainly compare color-coded
ReClose summaries against Google summaries. We
additionally compare ReClose summaries with and without
colorcoding to ensure that the color-coding made a di erence,
and that text selection alone was not the main cause for
improvement.
4.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Survey Participants and Survey Design</title>
      <p>For our survey we recruited 21 volunteers among
undergraduate and graduate students in the Computer
Engineering and Computer Science department at the University of
Louisville. Surveys were conducted exclusively online.</p>
      <p>The summary analysis was broken down into two parts
and repeated for each of the three summary techniques
under comparison. First a user would be shown 5 summaries
for a randomly selected query. For each summary a user
would mark if they would click on that summary. Then they
would mark the amount of relevant content expected. The
choices available were \None", \Sentences", \Paragraphs",
\Pages" or \Book". Rather than just obtaining which results
a user would click on, we obtain a ner grained
understanding of the process through how much relevant content a user
t
n
ouC 04
0
8
0
6
0
2
0</p>
      <p>Relevant
None</p>
      <p>Sent. Para. Pages
Relevance Expectations</p>
      <p>Book
expected.</p>
      <p>Second, users were provided links to each destination page
and viewed these pages one at a time. A user marked down
the actual amount of relevant content using the same options
presented for expectations. In this way rather than nding
out if a user believes a page is relevant or not to their search,
we can also monitor lesser disappointments, such as a user
expecting to nd pages and pages of relevant content but in
actuality only nding a couple of sentences. In this case the
document is still relevant, but the user is likely not satis ed
with the results.</p>
      <p>Survey participants were shown 5 summaries per summary
type for a total of 15 summaries.
4.2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Summary Data</title>
      <p>Survey participants were randomly assigned three queries
out of a pool of 15 queries. These queries were chapter titles
and project titles from an introductory course in computer
science so that all query topics were familiar to the survey
participants. Some example queries were logic gates and
creating a web page.</p>
      <p>For each of the 15 queries, 28 search results were obtained
from Google. We downloaded each linked web page in the
search results resulting in 400 successfully downloaded and
parsed web pages out of 420 possible. We only used 5 search
results per query. To decide which search results to use,
we randomly selected web pages from two pools. The rst
pool was likely to have search results with agged summaries
because when the frequencies of terms in a document was
ranked the query keywords had a low rank. The second pool
contained the top 5 search results as ranked by Google.</p>
      <p>After determining the pool of search results most likely to
be agged and the top Google search results, randomly we
select 2-4 results from the pool of results likely to be agged.
Then the remaining results are taken starting starting with
the top ranked Google result from the second pool.
4.3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Results and Discussion</title>
      <p>First we verify the relationship between user click behavior
and the relevance markings. Figure 5 shows the distribution
of expected relevance for search results clicked and skipped.
This gure shows that no user would click on a result if
they expected no relevant content. If a user expected only
a sentence or two of relevant data, users were unlikely to
click (72% or 64/89). A natural division emerges from the
expectation results. Users expecting \Sentences" or \None"
would skip the result 82% (116/141) of the time, leading us
to call this section \irrelevant". The other half of the
relevant spectrum we labeled \relevant". Users clicked through
84% (146/174) of the time when expecting \Paragraphs" or
more of relevant information. Performing a 2 test on the
count data revealed by this dividing line resulted in 2 value
of 134.8 and a p-value &lt; 0.001, clearly showing a signi cant
di erence between these two groups. Click through and
expectation have a lot in common, but expectations provide
more insight into the mental process of the search users.</p>
      <p>The expectations of survey participants was fairly
inaccurate. Only 34% (108/315) of expectations matched exactly
the actual relevant content of web pages. In another 34%
(108/315) of expectations resulted in actual content being
opposite of expectations in terms of the relevant/irrelevant
split mentioned earlier. For example there were 16
occurrences where a survey participant marked a relevant
expectation of \Paragraphs" or higher only to nd no relevant
content.</p>
      <p>In our survey color-coded ReClose summaries achieved
a much lower percentage of disappointment at 23% than
Google summaries achieved at 34% as shown in Table 2.
Disappointment was recorded when the relevant content was
lower than what their expectations. When we conduct a 2
test on the count data comparing Google and color-coded
ReClose we obtain a 2 value of 2.8 and a p-value of 0.09.
This p-value does not fall below the usual threshold value
of 0.05. However, there still remains an obvious di erence
between the results of Google summaries and color-coded
ReClose summaries that would become more pronounced
with the additional survey participants.
We now look at the precision with which users chose to
click on a result. Considering that a majority of users did
not click when expectations were a couple sentences or less,
we label all web page views with a few sentences or less of
relevant content as \irrelevant." Survey participant
marking more than a few sentences worth of relevant content
are labeled as \relevant." Dividing clicks into relevant and
irrelevant allows for us to calculate click precision. We
dene click precision as the percentage of summary views with
clicks that led to relevant web pages. Click recall is the
percentage of relevant documents that were clicked. The
results of these calculations for each summary technique can
be seen in Table 3.</p>
      <p>Table 3 shows that users clicked more often (61 times)
and had a higher click precision (80%) when using
colorcoded ReClose summaries than either Google (66%) or
ReClose summaries highlighting with bold (75%). When users
used Google summaries they clicked through to relevant web
pages only about 2/3 of the time that they clicked. With
more precise clicks, users using color-coded ReClose
summaries also clicked on more of the relevant content having
a click recall score of 70%. Individuals using Google and
bolded ReClose summaries skipped more relevant content
having recall scores of 60% and 64% respectively.</p>
      <p>In practice a higher click precision will be more
noticeable to users. Users are aware of clicks to irrelevant content,
experiencing disappointment. However, there is no form of
feedback for click recall. Users are not aware that they have
skipped over a relevant document. One of the main
objectives of color-coded ReClose summaries was to improve the
click precision for users. From the numbers in Table 3 it is
clear that color-coded ReClose summaries improve the
precision of users, both over Google summaries and ReClose
summaries without color-coding. This leads to fewer
disappointments in practice.
4.4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Color-Coded Results and Discussion</title>
      <p>We now consider the e ectiveness of the two color-coding
features: color-coded keywords and agged words. In this
section comparisons are only made between bolded and
colorcoded ReClose summaries. You can be assured both
outperformed Google summaries, but here the focus is just on the
added color-coding features. We rst consider the
colorcoded keywords. The scale we used allowed for usage count
di erentiation from 0-63. Summaries were not evenly
distributed across this range. Nearly half (49% or 37/75) of
the summaries used had at most a keyword with 0-9 usages
on the web page summarized. We would expect that users
would have low expectations for summaries that at most
contained keywords on the low end of the scale. Looking
at the results, there was no perceived change in behavior
for summaries containing low count query keywords (0-9) to
medium count (10-59). Only in the case of high count query
keywords (60+) was there a noticeable change in behavior.</p>
      <p>There were 13 summaries (17%) with at least one query
keyword with a usage count of 60+. For these 13
summaries, participants found the actual relevant content to be
high. For example no matter the summary type, more than
50% of views led to actual relevant content in the \Pages"
level. This was rarely expected when using bolded ReClose
summaries, see Table 4. Bolded ReClose summaries led to
23% of pages views in the \Pages" level expectations. The
color-coded ReClose summaries more often led to higher
expectations in line with the actual content. In 44% of views,
color-coded users identi ed an expectation in the \Pages"
range. Color-coded ReClose summaries also led to the
highest actual relevant content as well at 67%. In the case of
high usage count keywords, color-coded ReClose summaries
led to justi ably higher expectations.</p>
      <p>First we compare the e ect that agging had on
expectations which can be seen in Table 5 in the column marked
\Expected Relevant". In this table documents were
broken into two groups, documents that had terms agged by
color-coded ReClose (rows marked \Flaggable") and
documents that did not (rows marked \Not Flaggable"). When
color-coded ReClose summaries had agged terms, the
expectations were much lower (29% expected to be relevant)
than those same summaries without color-coding (40%
expected to be relevant). A similar pattern was found for
color-coded summaries without agged terms having higher
expectations. This shows that the agging of terms directly
a ected the expectations of the user.
There is a much lower percentage of documents found to
be relevant that had agged terms. Even in the case where
agged terms were not shown to users (bolded ReClose
summaries), 45% of documents that could have been agged
were found to be relevant compared to 71% of documents
that would not have had agged terms. What is interesting
is how agging a ects the click precision of users. Those that
saw the agged terms had a click precision of 57% on agged
summaries compared to 70% that did not see the agging for
these same summaries. However, users expected more and
were more precise when color-coding was available and no
agged terms appeared in a summary achieving a click
precision of 87% compared to 78% without color-coding. Overall
with far fewer clicks among agged summaries, the
overall click precision was higher for the color-coded version of
ReClose (see Table 3).</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>In this paper we outline color-coded ReClose summaries.
Web-based summaries were visually enhanced using two
techniques. The rst technique was to provide global context
for the query keywords, by using varying color to highlight
these keywords. The second technique highlighted in red
terms that topically di ered from the topics of a query. This
provided a warning mechanism to aid users avoid clicking
through to results less likely to be relevant. We
hypothesized that color-coded ReClose summaries would increase
the accuracy of user click decisions, thus reducing
disappointments and improving user experiences.</p>
      <p>Survey results showed that color-coded ReClose summaries
(80%) led to an improvement in user click precision over
Google summaries (66%). This in turn led to color-coded
ReClose summaries resulting in fewer disappointments (24)
compared to Google summaries (36). Improved precision
and decreased disappointment will result in a better user
experience.</p>
      <p>A closer look at the survey results showed that both
highlighting techniques of color-coding keywords and agging
divergent topic terms both were e ective. Color-coding
summaries is an e ective way to enhance the summary
information to users without increasing the screen space. We plan
on making further improvements to the selection algorithm
for agged terms. We also plan to enhance summaries with
the use of multimedia.
6.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Baudisch</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Lee</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Hanna</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Fishnet, a sheye web browser with search term popouts: a comparative evaluation with overview and linear view</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces</source>
          ,
          <source>AVI '04</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>133</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>140</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2004</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Byrd</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A scrollbar-based visualization for document navigation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Digital libraries, DL '99</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>122</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>129</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>1999</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L. C.</given-names>
            <surname>Freeman</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Centrality in social networks conceptual clari cation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Social Networks</source>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ):
          <volume>215</volume>
          {
          <fpage>239</fpage>
          ,
          <fpage>1978</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1979</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Google</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Changing your site's title and description in search results</article-title>
          . http://www.google.com/support/ webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=
          <fpage>35264</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Graham</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The reader's helper: a personalized document reading environment</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on</source>
          <article-title>Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit</article-title>
          ,
          <source>CHI '99</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>481</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>488</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>1999</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Hemmje</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Kunkel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Willett</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Lyberworld - a visualization user interface supporting fulltext retrieval</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 17th Annual International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval</source>
          ,
          <source>ACM SIGIR</source>
          , pages
          <volume>249</volume>
          {
          <fpage>259</fpage>
          . Berlin: Springer,
          <year>1994</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Kaugars.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Integrated multi scale text retrieval visualization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In CHI 98 conference summary on Human factors in computing systems, CHI '98</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>307</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>308</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>1998</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Marchionini</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Information seeking in electronic environments</article-title>
          . Cambridge University Press,
          <year>1995</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Microsoft</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Anatomy of a bing caption</article-title>
          . http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/ webmaster/archive/2010/10/25/ anatomy-of
          <article-title>-a-bing-caption</article-title>
          .aspx.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Schamber</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Relevance and information behavior</article-title>
          .
          <source>Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST)</source>
          ,
          <volume>29</volume>
          :3{
          <fpage>48</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1994</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Veerasamy</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Belkin</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Evaluation of a tool for visualization of information retrieval results</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR</source>
          , pages
          <volume>85</volume>
          {
          <fpage>92</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Wenerstrom</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Kantardzic</surname>
          </string-name>
          . ReClose:
          <article-title>Web page summarization combining summary techniques</article-title>
          .
          <year>2011</year>
          .
          <article-title>Accepted for publication in the</article-title>
          <source>International Journal of Web Information Systems on</source>
          <volume>4</volume>
          /27/
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yahoo</surname>
          </string-name>
          !
          <article-title>How to change a page title or description in yahoo! search results</article-title>
          . http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/ yahoo/search/indexing/indexing-11.html.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>