Element contents
Navigating the Web
A Qualitative Eye Tracking–Based Study of Translators' Web Search Behaviour
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 April 2023
Summary
This Element reports an investigation of translators' use of web-based resources and search engines. The study adopted a qualitative eye tracking-based methodology utilising a combination of gaze replay and retrospective think aloud (RTA) to elicit data. The main contribution of this Element lies in presenting not only an alternative eye tracking methodology for investigating translators' web search behaviour but also a systematic approach to gauging the reasoning behind translators' highly complex and context-dependent interaction with search engines and the Web.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009122924Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 13 April 2023
References
Aula, A., Majaranta, P. and Räihä, K. J., 2005. Eye-tracking reveals the personal styles for search result evaluation. In Costabile, M. F. and Paternò, F. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2005. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1058–61.Google Scholar
Ball, L. J., Eger, N., Stevens, R. and Dodd, J., 2006. Applying the PEEP method in usability testing. Interfaces, 67(Summer): 15–19.Google Scholar
Bates, M. J., 1989. The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5): 407–24.Google Scholar
Beutelspacher, L., 2019, July. Dr. Google, please help me understand! In Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Cham: Springer, pp. 90–107.Google Scholar
Bowers, V. A. and Snyder, H. L., 1990, October. Concurrent versus retrospective verbal protocol for comparing window usability. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 34(17): 1270–4.Google Scholar
Bozzon, A., Brambilla, M., Ceri, S. et al., 2013. Exploratory search framework for web data sources. The VLDB Journal, 22: 641–63.Google Scholar
Byström, K. and Järvelin, K., 1995. Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing & Management, 31(2): 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(95)80035-RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadwell, P., Castilho, S., O’Brien, S. and Mitchell, L., 2016. Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators. Translation Spaces, 5(2): 222–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carl, M. and Schaeffer, M., 2018. The development of the TPR-DB as grounded theory method. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1(1): 168–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carl, M., Schaeffer, M. and Bangalore, S., 2016. The CRITT translation process research database. In Carl, M., Bangalore, S. and Schaeffer, M. (eds.) New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 13–54.Google Scholar
Case, D. O. and Given, L. M., 2016. Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior. 4th ed. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceri, S., Bozzon, A., Brambilla, M. et al. 2013. Web Information Retrieval. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Cho, H., Powell, D., Pichon, A. et al., 2019. Eye-tracking retrospective think-aloud as a novel approach for a usability evaluation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 129: 366–73.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., Pellicer-Sánchez, A. and Carrol, G., 2018. Eye-Tracking: A Guide for Applied Linguistics Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, V., Sias Rodrigues, A., Agostini, L. B. et al., 2019. The potential of user experience (UX) as an approach of evaluation in tangible user interfaces (TUI). International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. In Marcus, A. and Wang, W. (eds.) Design, User Experience, and Usability: Practice and Case Studies. Cham: Springer Nature, pp.30–48.Google Scholar
Cui, Y. and Zheng, B., 2021a. Consultation behaviour with online resources in English–Chinese translation: An eye-tracking, screen-recording and retrospective study. Perspectives, 29(5): 740–60.Google Scholar
Cui, Y. and Zheng, B., 2021b. Effect of perceived translation difficulty on the allocation of cognitive resources between translating and consultation: An eye-tracking and screen-recording study. In Wang, C. and Zheng, B. (eds.) Empirical Studies of Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge, pp. 51–73.Google Scholar
Dervin, B., 1983. An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods and results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX, May. http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artdervin83.html.Google Scholar
Dervin, B., 1998. Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2): 36–46.Google Scholar
Doherty, S. and O’Brien, S., 2014. Assessing the usability of raw machine translated output: A user-centered study using eye tracking. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(1): 40–51.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. and Perrin, D., 2009. Capturing translation processes to access metalinguistic awareness. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2): 275–88.Google Scholar
EMT. 2017. EMT Competence Framework. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/emt_competence_fwk_2017_en_web.pdfGoogle Scholar
Enríquez Raído, V., 2011. Investigating the Web Search Behaviors of Translation Students: An Exploratory and Multiple-Case Study. Unpublished PhD thesis. Barcelona: Universitat Ramon Llull.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A., 1998. How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3): 178–86.Google Scholar
Fidel, R., 2012. Human Information Interaction: An Ecological Approach to Information Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fogg, B. J., 2003, April. Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. In CHI’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Cockton, Gilbert (Chair). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 722–3.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. and Tang, H. H., 2001. The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process. Design Studies, 22(3): 283–95.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., 2009. Towards a model of translation competence and acquisition: The longitudinal study TransComp. In Göpferich, S., Lykke Jakobsen, A. and Mees, I.M. (eds.) Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitterature Press, pp. 11–37.Google Scholar
Gough, J., 2016. The Patterns of Interaction between Professional Translators and Online Resources. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
Granka, L., Feusner, M. and Lorigo, L., 2008. Eye monitoring in online search. In Hammoud, R. I. (ed.) Passive Eye Monitoring. Berlin: Springer, pp. 347–72.Google Scholar
Granka, L. A., Joachims, T. and Gay, G., 2004, July. Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 478–9.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, A., Moorkens, J. and O’Brien, S., 2021. The impact of translation modality on user experience: An eye-tracking study of the Microsoft Word user interface. Machine Translation, 35(2): 205–37.Google Scholar
Hansen, J. P., 1991. The use of eye mark recordings to support verbal retrospection in software testing. Acta Psychologica, 76(1): 31–49.Google Scholar
Hartson, H. R. and Hix, D., 1989. Human-computer interface development: Concepts and systems for its management. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 21(1): 5–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodkinson, C., Geoffrey, K. and Mccoll-Kennedy, J. R., 2000. Consumer web search behaviour: Diagrammatic illustration of wayfinding on the web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(5): 805–30. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0357Google Scholar
Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R. et al., 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T., 2017. Translators’ use of digital resources during translation. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 56: 71–87.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T., 2019. Digital resources in the translation process: Attention, cognitive effort and processing flow. Perspectives, 27(4): 510–24.Google Scholar
Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B. et al., 2007. Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 25(2): 1–27.Google Scholar
Jones, W., Pirolli, P., Card, S. K. et al., 2006. It’s about the information stupid! Why we need a separate field of human-information interaction. CHI’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 65–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125469.Google Scholar
Kammerer, Y. and Gerjets, P., 2012. How search engine users evaluate and select web search results: The impact of the search engine interface on credibility assessments. Web Search Engine Research, 4: 251–79.Google Scholar
Kammerer, Y. and Gerjets, P., 2014. The role of search result position and source trustworthiness in the selection of web search results when using a list or a grid interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(3): 177–91.Google Scholar
Kattenbeck, M. and Elsweiler, D., 2019. Understanding credibility judgements for web search snippets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1): 368–91.Google Scholar
Kessler, S. H. and Zillich, A. F., 2019. Searching online for information about vaccination: Assessing the influence of user-specific cognitive factors using eye tracking. Health Communication, 34(10): 1150–8.Google Scholar
Khabsa, M., Crook, A., Awadallah, A. H., Zitouni, I., Anastasakos, T. and Williams, K., 2016. Learning to account for good abandonment in search success metrics. Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Indianapolis, United States, pp. 1893–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2983323.2983867.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, M. and Takeda, K., 2000. Information retrieval on the web. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(2): 144–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/358923.358934.Google Scholar
Kuhlthau, C. C., 1990. The information search process: From theory to practice. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 31(1): 72–5.Google Scholar
Kuhlthau, C. C., 1991. Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5): 361–71.Google Scholar
Lee, K., Hoti, K., Hughes, J. D. and Emmerton, L. M., 2015. Consumer use of “Dr Google”: A survey on health information-seeking behaviors and navigational needs. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(12): e288. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4345.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, D. and Kammerer, Y., 2021. Factors influencing viewing behaviour on search engine results pages: A review of eye-tracking research. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(14): 1485–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1761450.Google Scholar
Li, J., Huffman, S. and Tokuda, A., 2009, July. Good abandonment in mobile and PC internet search. Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar
Ludolph, R., Allam, A. and Schulz, P. J., 2016. Manipulating Google’s knowledge graph box to counter biased information processing during an online search on vaccination: Application of a technological debiasing strategy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(6): e137.Google Scholar
Marchionini, G., 2006. Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Communications of the ACM, 49(4): 41–6.Google Scholar
Marsh, S., 1990. Human computer interaction: An operational definition. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 22(1): 16–22.Google Scholar
Massey, G. and Ehrensberger-Dow, M., 2011a. Investigating information literacy: A growing priority in translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures, 12(2): 193–211.Google Scholar
Massey, G. and Ehrensberger-Dow, M., 2011b. Technical and instrumental competence in the translator’s workplace: Using process research to identify educational and ergonomic needs. ILCEA Revue de l’Institut des langues et cultures d’Europe, Amérique, Afrique, Asie et Australie, 14. https://doi.org/10.4000/ilcea.1060.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., 1983. Informavores. In Machlup, F. and Mansfield, U. (eds.) The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages. New York: Wiley-Interscience, pp. 111–13.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S., 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2): 175-220.Google Scholar
Nielsen, C. M., Overgaard, M., Pedersen, M. B. and Stage, J., 2005. Feedback from usability evaluation to user interface design: Are usability reports any good? In Costabile, M. F. and Paternò, F. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2005. INTERACT 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3585. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11555261_33.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J., 2006. F-shaped pattern for reading web content. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S., 2006. Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives, 14(3): 185–205.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S., 2010. Controlled language and readability. Translation and Cognition, 15: 143–68.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S., 2012. Translation as human–computer interaction. Translation Spaces, 1(1): 101–22.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S., 2013. The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 25(1): 5–17.Google Scholar
Olalla-Soler, C., 2018. Using electronic information resources to solve cultural translation problems: Differences between students and professional translators. Journal of Documentation, 74(6): 1293–1317. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2018-0033.Google Scholar
Olalla-Soler, C., 2019. Using translation strategies to solve cultural translation problems: Differences between students and professional translators. Perspectives, 27(3): 367–88.Google Scholar
Olsen, A., Smolentzov, L. and Strandvall, T., 2010. Comparing different eye tracking cues when using the retrospective think aloud method in usability testing. Proceedings of the HCI 2010, 24th BCS Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Dundee, UK, 6–10 September 2010. www.scienceopen.com/document_file/6d0b8ece-b7d1-4589-ae86-c0a35f3e6ae5/ScienceOpen/045_Olsen.pdf.Google Scholar
PACTE, 2002. Exploratory tests in a study of translation competence. Conference Interpretation and Translation, 4(2): 41–69.Google Scholar
PACTE, 2011. Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Translation project and dynamic translation index. In O’Brien, S. (ed.) Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: Continuum, pp. 30–56.Google Scholar
PACTE, 2017. PACTE translation competence model: A holistic, dynamic model of translation competence. In Hurtado Albir, A. (ed.) Researching Translation Competence by PACTE Group. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–41.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P., 2007. Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharpe, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. and Carey, T., 1994. Human–Computer Interaction. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H. R., Dobrowolski, T. and Tenopir, C., 2008. The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4): 290–310.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. and O’Brien, S., 2014. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R., 2018. Berrypicking and information foraging: Comparison of two theoretical frameworks for studying exploratory search. Journal of Information Science, 44(5): 580–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551517713168.Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. and Kari, J., 2006. User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation, 62(6): 685–707. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610714921.Google Scholar
Shih, C. Y., 2017. Web search for translation: An exploratory study on six Chinese trainee translators’ behaviour. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 4(1): 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2017.1284641.Google Scholar
Shih, C. Y., 2019. A quest for web search optimisation: An evidence-based approach to trainee translators’ behaviour Perspectives, 27(6): 908–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1579847.Google Scholar
Shih, C. Y., 2021. Navigating the web: A study on professional translators’ behaviour. In Wang, C. and Zheng, B. (eds.) Empirical Studies of Translation and Interpreting: The Post-Structuralist Approach. New York: Routledge, pp. 74–92.Google Scholar
Shih, C. Y., in press. From the periphery to the centre of investigation and beyond: affect and emotion in translation process research. In Shih, C. and Wang, C. (eds.) Translation and Interpreting as Social Interaction, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Shreve, G. M., 2006. The deliberate practice: Translation and expertise. Journal of Translation Studies, 9(1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. W. and Krebs, J. R., 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Spink, A. and Jansen, B. J. (eds.), 2004. Web Search: Public Searching of the Web. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sycz-Opoń, J., 2019. Information-seeking behaviour of translation students at the University of Silesia during legal translation: An empirical investigation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(2): 152–76.Google Scholar
Sycz-Opoń, J. E., 2021. Trainee translators’ research styles: A taxonomy based on an observation study at the university of Silesia, Poland. Translation & Interpreting, 13(2): 136–63.Google Scholar
Tanner, S., McCarthy, M. and O’Reilly, S., 2020. Using eye-tracking and retrospective think aloud as a probing tool in food labelling research: An abstract. In Pantoja, F., Wu, S. and Krey, N. (eds.) Enlightened Marketing in Challenging Times: Proceedings of the 2019 AMS World Marketing Congress (WMC). Cham Springer, pp. 555–6.Google Scholar
Van den Haak, M., De Jong, M. and Jan Schellens, P., 2003. Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5): 339–51.Google Scholar
Van der Meer, J. and Ruopp, A., 2015. MT Market Report 2014. TAUS – Enabling Better Translation. www.taus.net/think-tank/reports/translate-reports/mt-market-report-2014.Google Scholar
Wang, J., 2018. Information seeking behaviour in two-way translation: An empirical study. Unpublished MPhil thesis. Guildford: University of Surrey.Google Scholar
White, R, Marchionini, G. and Muresan, G., 2008. Evaluating exploratory search systems: Introduction to special topic issue of information processing and management. Information Processing & Management, 44(2): 433–6.Google Scholar
White, R. W., 2016. Interactions with Search Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whyatt, B., Witczak, O. and Tomczak, E., 2021. Information behaviour in bidirectional translators: Focus on online resources. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 15(2): 154–71.Google Scholar
Wu, W. C. and Kelly, D., 2014. Online search stopping behaviors: An investigation of query abandonment and task stopping. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., 2018. Beyond query-oriented highlighting: Investigating the effect of snippet text highlighting in search user behavior. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7836969.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.