WORKSHOP REPORTSIGIR 2009 Workshop on Understanding the User –Logging and interpreting user interactions in information search andretrievalGeorg Buscher
DFKI GmbHgeorg.buscher@dfki.de

Jacek Gwizdka
Rutgers University
jacekg@rutgers.edu

Jaime Teevan
Microsoft Researchteevan@microsoft.com

Nicholas J. Belkin
Rutgers University
belkin@rutgers.edu

Ralf Bierig
Rutgers University
bierig@rci.rutgers.edu

Ludger van Elst
DFKI GmbHelst@dfki.uni-kl.de

Joemon Jose
Glasgow University
jj@dcs.gla.ac.uk

1

Introduction

Modern information search systems can benefit greatly from using additional information about theuser and the user's behavior, and research in this area is active and growing. Feedback data based on
direct interaction (e.g., clicks, scrolling, etc.) as well as on user profiles/preferences has been provenvaluable for personalizing the search process, e.g., from how queries are understood to how relevanceis assessed. New technology has made it inexpensive and easy to collect more feedback data andmore different types of data (e.g., gaze, emotional, or biometric data).
The workshop “Understanding the User – Logging and interpreting user interactions in
information search and retrieval” was held in conjunction with the 32nd Annual International ACM
SIGIR Conference. It focused on discussing and identifying most promising research directions withrespect to logging, interpreting, integrating, and using feedback data. The workshop aimed atbringing together researchers especially from the domains of IR and human-computer interaction
interested in the collection, interpretation, and application of user behavior logging for search.
Ultimately, one of the main goals was to arrange a commonly shared collection of user interaction
logging tools based on a variety of feedback data sources as well as best practices for their usage.

2

Structure of the Workshop

Since one of the main goals of the workshop was to gather practical information and best practices
about logging tools, it was structured in a way to foster collaboration and discussion among its
participants. Therefore, it was less presentation intensive (it included only 4 oral paper presentations),
but contained more collaboration-supporting elements: participant introductions, poster presentations,a panel discussion, and, most importantly, group discussions.
This was also reflected in the types of possible submissions: Experience papers (4 pages) should
describe experiences with acquiring, logging, interpreting and/or use of using interaction data. Demosof applications or new technology could be presented. Position statements should focus on types of
ACM SIGIR Forum

57

Vol. 43 No. 2 December 2009

user interaction data / their interpretation / their use.
Each of those papers and demo descriptions got reviews by two members of the programcommittee. The program committee also judged the interestingness of each paper with regard to oralpresentation (e.g., suitability to spawn discussion). The final selection of the 4 papers for oralpresentation was made also with respect to the diversity of topics and approaches they covered. The
accepted demos and all remaining accepted papers were selected for poster presentation.
The program of the workshop also reflected the focus on collaboration: It started with anextended participant introduction session where each participant of the workshop was asked toshortly present his or her main research interests related to the workshop’s topics. A poster and demo
session followed, succeeded by oral presentations of the 4 selected papers. After each paper, there
was limited time for focused questions. In that way, each participant got the chance to see allworkshop submissions (either as posters or presentations) and to talk to the authors, after which apanel with 3 panelists was formed based on submitted position statements. Following the panel
discussion, breakout groups were formed based on common research interests and practical issues
collected during the participant introduction session. The workshop ended with a summary of theachieved results and next steps to take.
Overall, reflecting on the general structure, we believe that the workshop was very successful ingenerating lots of focused discussions among the participants. Especially during the participant
introductions, the poster sessions, and the breakout group discussions, every single participant was
actively involved and very engaged (rather than only those who submitted papers).

3

Participant Diversity

The workshop drew 34 registered attendees. They mostly came from academia, but there were strong
contributions from industry as well.
The participant introductions in the beginning of the workshop revealed a positively surprisingbroad range of expertise, experiences, and interests. In Table 1, we give an overview of the range of
scenarios focused on by the different attendees. Table 2 shows topics the participants were mostinterested in.

4

Paper, Poster and Demo Presentations

In this section, we group and briefly list the papers that have been accepted for the workshop.
Overall, 11 experience papers and 4 demos were accepted which are arranged into 5 topical groups
below. Four papers (one from 4 of the 5 groups) were selected for oral presentation. (Moreinformation about the program can be found on the Web: http://uiir-2009.dfki.de/index.php/program.)
The workshop proceedings can be found in [1].
Logging tools / frameworks- Oral presentation by Ralf Bierig, Jacek Gwizdka and Michael Cole: A User-CenteredExperiment and Logging Framework for Interactive Information Retrieval. They presented aframework for multidimensional (interaction) data logging that can be used to conduct
interactive IR experiments.
- Demo by Claus-Peter Klas and Matthias Hemmje. Catching the User - User Context throughLive Logging in DAFFODIL. This demo presented an interactive IR experimentation
framework that can be used to log events during a search session such as querying, browsing,storing, and modifying contents on several levels.
- Demo by Robert Capra. HCI Browser: A Tool for Studying Web Search Behavior. This demo
showed a browser extension that contains the most important functionalities needed when
ACM SIGIR Forum

58

Vol. 43 No. 2 December 2009

conducting a browser-based user study, such as logging browser-specific events and presenting
questionnaires to the user before and after an experiment.
Table 1: Scenarios workshop participants focused on with respect to logging and using (implicit) userinteraction data
Types of information interacted with
Types of (implicit) interaction data
• Information visualizations / search interfaces• Queries• Web text documents• Clicks, URL visitso Identification of interaction patterns, e.g.,• Personal information (emails, files on desktop)
repeat actions (repeat queries, repeat URL• Notes/annotations in documents
visits)• Music•
Notes/annotations• Images• Structured or semi-structured data (e.g., medical • Changes made by author in document• Eye movements
information)• Biometric feedback: EEG, galvanic skin
• Physical content (pictures, books)
response (GSR), facial expressions

Uses of implicit interaction data
• Modeling the usero Identification of domain knowledge / expertiseo Better expression of interestso Emotion detection (frustration, stress)o Identification of good / bad experiences• Personalization / contextualizationo Improving relevanceo Proactive information delivery• Introspection / reflection (e.g., analyzing what makes a good searcher)• Finding better ways to display retrieved information

Table 2: Topics of interest
Topics focused on in the above scenarios• Tools for processing low-level logs (e.g., eye tracking, EEG, ...)• Ways to combine implicit and explicit feedback data (frameworks)• Ways (tools) to record context (current task, etc.)• Sharing of logging tools and log data sets (collection of tools, data formats, etc.)• Uses for implicit data:o Improving information experiences in the aggregateo Personalizing information experienceso Social sciences: Reflecting on people in the aggregate
o Introspection: Reflecting on self or individual• Validity of collected data (collected in the wilds vs. in a user study; dependence on used collection
tools)• Privacy issues

ACM SIGIR Forum

59

Vol. 43 No. 2 December 2009

Demo by Stephen Dignum, Yunhyong Kim, Udo Kruschwitz, Dawei Song, Maria Fasli and Anne De
Roeck. Using Domain Models for Context-Rich User Logging. The demo presented an interface
where users can explore a domain using structured representations thereof. The authors propose using
the explored paths of the domain model as contextual feedback.
Analyzing user behavior logs
- Oral Presentation by Robert Capra, Bill Kules, Matt Banta and Tito Sierra. Faceted Search for
Library Catalogs: Developing Grounded Tasks and Analyzing Eye-Tracking Data. The authors
aim at examining how faceted search interfaces are used in a digital library. They conducted aneye tracking user study and discuss challenges and approaches for analyzing gaze data.
- Poster by Hitomi Saito, Hitoshi Terai, Yuka Egusa, Masao Takaku, Makiko Miwa and Noriko
Kando. How Task Types and User Experiences Affect Information-Seeking Behavior on the
Web: Using Eye-tracking and Client-side Search Logs. They used screen-capture logs and eye
tracking to identify differences in search behavior according to task type and search experience.
- Poster by Maristella Agosti, Franco Crivellari and Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio. Evaluation of
Digital Library Services Using Complementary Logs. The authors argue that analyzing querylogs alone is not sufficient to study user behavior. Rather, analyzing a larger variety of behavior
logs (beyond query logs) and combining them leads to more accurate results.
Analyzing query logs in the aggregate- Poster by Laura Granka. Inferring the Public Agenda from Implicit Query Data. The author
presents an approach how to apply query log analysis to create indicators of political interest.
As an example, poll ratings of presidential candidates are approximated by query log analysis.
- Poster by Suzan Verberne, Max Hinne, Maarten van der Heijden, Eva D'hondt, Wessel Kraaij
and Theo van der Weide. Annotating URLs with query terms: What factors predict reliable
annotations? The authors try to determine factors that predict the quality of URL annotations
from query terms found in query logs.
Interpreting interaction feedback for an improved immediate/aggregated search/browsing experience- Oral presentation by Mark Cramer, Mike Wertheim and David Hardtke: Demonstration of
Improved Search Result Relevancy Using Real-Time Implicit Relevance Feedback. The paper
reports about Surf Canyon, an existing browser plugin that interprets users’ browsing behaviors
for immediate improved ranking of results from commercial search engines. They show thatincorporating user behavior can drastically improve overall result relevancy in the wild.
- Poster by Rui Li, Evelyn Rozanski and Anne Haake. Framework of a Real-Time Adaptive
Hypermedia System. The authors present an adaptive hypermedia system that makes use of bothbrowsing behavior and eye movement data of a user while interacting with the system. They
use this information to automatically re-arrange information for more suitable user presentation.
- Poster by Max Van Kleek, David Karger and mc Schraefel. Watching Through the Web:
Building Personal Activity and Context-Aware Interfaces using Web Activity Streams. They use
user activity logs from Web-based information to build more personalized activity-sensitive
information tools. They particularly focus on activity-based organization of user-created notes.
- Demo by Xuanhui Wang and ChengXiang Zhai. Massive Implicit Feedback: Organizing
Search Logs into Topic Maps for Collaborative Surfing. In this demo, search and browsing logs
from Web searchers are organized into topic maps so that users can follow the footprints fromsearchers who had similar information needs before.

ACM SIGIR Forum60

Vol. 43 No. 2 December 2009

Behavior-based evaluation measures- Oral presentation by Emine Yilmaz, Milad Shokouhi, Nick Craswell and Stephen Robertson.
Incorporating user behavior information in IR evaluation. The authors introduce a new usercentric measure (Expected Browsing Utility, EBU) for information retrieval evaluation which isreconciled with click log information from search engines.
- Poster by Tereza Iofciu, Nick Craswell and Milad Shokouhi. Evaluating the impact of snippet
highlighting in search. The authors present the idea of highlighting important terms in search
result snippets for helping the user to quickly identify whether a result matches the own queryinterpretation. They use speed and accuracy of clicks to evaluate the effect of highlighting.

5

Panel Discussion

The panel was moderated by Jacek Gwizdka; Claus-Peter Klas, Jeremy Pickens, and Xiaojun Yuan
were panelists. Panelists first presented their views in short presentations and discussion followed.
Claus-Peter Klas talked about supporting users within a search task by logging activities between
the user and the system. He emphasized the notion of an information dialog that supports the
cognitive abilities of users not only for a query at hand, but rather for the complete search process.
Information being most important to personalize the user’s search experience would be the task
context, the environment (both virtually concerning the computing device worked with as well as thephysical location). This kind of information about the user should not only be applied for,personalization, and thus to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of search processes. It should
also be used to teach information competence for search. To reach those goals, careful, but massive
long-term logging will be needed as well as a repository of shared tools and data collections.
Jeremy Pickens focused on the problem of inferring information about cognitive processes
during search from interaction logs. He pointed out the problem that interaction logs only provide
information about physical actions and do not directly tell anything about the quality of the overall
user experience which is especially true for sparse interaction logs like page transition logs. In orderto proceed with inferring information about the user experience, he introduced ideas by Max Wilson
and himself. For example, classifying meaningful pattern sequences in log files might help toindentify user intentions during specific time frames. Further, triangulating between different kinds oflogs might lead to better estimations of user experience.
Xiaojun Yuan focused on the specific problem of using interaction logging data to inform thedesign of information visualization systems. She presented a user study which aimed to compare
search performance using logged user interactions and dependent on individual domain knowledge.

6

Results of Breakout Groups

Three breakout groups were formed based on the interests of the participants. All groups had lively
and very engaged discussions. In the end, all breakout groups reported about their results back to allparticipants of the workshop. Here, we briefly give an overview of the discussed topics.
Group 1 primarily discussed ideas and steps to share logging tools and frameworks as well as log
data itself in the community. They decided that the best way of sharing frameworks and data would
be to create a repository on the Web. The repository should contain a wiki with sections about
logging tools and software, log data (as well as log meta-data), guides and how-to manuals, and a listof experts and research projects in the area. Furthermore, a mailing list should be created informing
about updates of the wiki and about general topics of interest. The wiki will be createdat http://culpool.dei.unipd.it.
Group 2 focused on issues concerning the interpretation of log data. The participants had
experience with a great variety of user interaction logs, e.g., not only with mouse- and keyboard
ACM SIGIR Forum

61

Vol. 43 No. 2 December 2009

based interaction with the computer, but also with eye tracking, skin-conductance feedback, andpressure-sensitive mice or seat cushions. They primarily created a list of software and tools that have
proven useful for logging interaction data. (The list will be posted on the wiki.) Further, they
discussed issues and problems encountered by the participants concerning the interpretation of eye
tracking data and biometric feedback, i.e., time synchronization issues between logs of different
modalities, problems arising from different log granularities, and challenges with respect to finding
meaningful log patterns.
Group 3 dealt with behavior modeling. Since this is a very hard task with numerous facets, theparticipants concentrated on a more principled approach. They started with observing / logging user
behavior and then posed the question what factors and theories might explain those behaviors. Then,from a cognitive perspective an answer should be found why the identified factors influence or yield
the observed behaviors, whereas from an engineering perspective it should be tried to predict what
they will do. This approach was then exemplified in several scenarios.

7

Conclusions

Over the course of the workshop, we have seen a great variety of types of logged user interactions, of
methods how they are interpreted, and how this information is used and applied. Concerning the latter
point, how log data is used and applied, we have seen an especially great variety: frompersonalization purposes, over a more informed visual design of search systems, to teaching users
how to search more effectively.
However, the basis for all those different kinds of applications is the same: logged interaction
data between a user and a system. There are basic kinds of interaction data, e.g., based on explicit
events from the user while browsing the Web, such as clicks and page transitions as well as mouse
movements and scrolling. More advanced and more implicit interaction data logging becomes more
and more popular, e.g., based on eye tracking, skin conductance, and EEG. During the workshop, we
identified common needs and problems with respect to logging interaction data. They reached fromextracting the focused data from different software applications to merging interaction data streams
from different sources. Here, we clearly see a need for a common basis of tools and frameworks
shared within the community so that individual researchers don’t have to re-invent the wheel over
and over again.
As a consequence, the workshop participants agreed on setting up a wiki
(http://culpool.dei.unipd.it) containing a collection of tools and frameworks that have been provenuseful for interaction data logging and merging. In addition to the wiki, a mailing list will be set up
informing about changes in the wiki and about topics of general interest to the community addressedby this workshop.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank ACM and SIGIR for hosting this workshop as well as the SIGIR workshop
committee and especially its chair Diane Kelly for their very helpful feedback. We are further very
thankful to the authors, the members of our program committee, and all participants. They helped toform a very lively, spirited, highly interesting, and successful workshop.

References[1] Belkin, N. J.; Bierig, R.; Buscher, G.; Elst, L. v.; Gwizdka, J.; Jose, J. & Teevan, J. (ed.): Proc. of
the Workshop on Understanding the User – Logging and Interpreting User Interactions inInformation Search and Retrieval (UIIR-2009), July 23, 2009, Boston, MA, USA. CEUR-WS.org,
2009, vol. 512.
ACM SIGIR Forum

62

Vol. 43 No. 2 December 2009