1. User Model-Statement of Purpose

202-11 Project 1 Gabriel Beeler Eric Bryan Louise Heim Heather Fucinari 1. User Model-Statement of Purpose

Potential Users:

1) Halloween candy collectors who want to organize their collection and see what

they are missing.

2) Conscientious parents who have children with allergies would use this database to

screen potential harmful ingredients in their children’s Halloween candy. They

most likely would be interested in our filling field and also in the name of the

candy, so that particular item could be avoided.

3) Party planners who want novelty candy to go with the theme of their Halloween

parties would be another target user.

4) Businesses and shops that are looking for something new and exciting to attract

customers to the candy section. They could match their stock records with the

database and find new themed candy items for the Halloween season.

Possible Queries:

1) Halloween collectors will search to see if they have an item already or to see if an

item exits. An example would be a search performed for Pez dispensers under

“brand” and “classification”. Keywords would be: Witch, Pez dispenser.

2) Conscientious parents would search under the fields candy “filling”. Ex:

Keywords would be, “peanut” for that specific allergen.

3) Party planners searching “Candy Character” for novelty characters to add that

special touch to their parties. Keywords would be “bugs” or “ghost”. 4) Businesses would be interested in searching by Candy “weight” for items in their

bulk bins and also by Candy “Name” and “Brand” to find new items to stock.

2. Description of database

Based on our user model, the group decided to treat each individual candy as an item.

Parents, for example, need their query to return an individual brand name such as

“Snickers” to avoid those that were populated by the keyword “peanuts”. The decision to provide specific characteristics were also taken into consideration for the user groups of candy collectors and party planners. These user groups often search on a theme. Perhaps they have a penchant for ghosts. This query will return items packaged in contains with the likeness of a ghost or candies in the shape of a ghost.

Although the query may result in similar returns, a user can easily differentiate the candy by a myriad of fields. Perhaps they want a ghost, but not chocolate. The “Candy

Character” field designates it is a ghost and the “Candy Packaging” defines it as a container, while the “Candy Type” designates the actual candy as gum. Some of these fields are predefined lists to prompt the user to enter the acceptable term such as

“cellophane” instead of entering “plastic” which can be broad.

Our team strove for a the best combination of variables and indexing to make this database both useful for our intended user model and well defined for the potential database builder.

3. Data Structure

Textbase Structure

Textbase: C:\Documents and Settings\gabriel\Desktop\202\202 project\candy\Candy

Created: 9/24/2006 1:47:46 PM Modified: 9/27/2006 7:12:59 PM

Field Summary:

1. Candy Number: Automatic Number(next avail=11, increm=1), Term

2. Candy Brand: Text, Term & Word

Validation: required

3. Candy Name: Text, Term & Word

4. Candy Character: Text, Term & Word

5. Candy Type: Text, Term & Word

6. Candy Packaging: Text, Term & Word

Validation: required, valid-list

7. Candy Weight - grams: Number, Term

8. Candy Flavor: Text, Term & Word

9. Candy Hardness: Text, Term

Validation: valid-list

10. Candy Filling: Text, Term & Word

Log file enabled, showing 'Candy Number'

Leading articles: a an the

Stop words: a an and by for from in of the to

Textbase Defaults:

Default indexing mode: SHARED IMMEDIATE

Default sort order:

Textbase passwords:

Master password = '' 0 Access passwords:

No Silent password

Validation list for Candy Packaging: cellophane dispenser foil other

Validation list for Candy Hardness: hard medium soft

4. Set of Rules for Indexing

The unit of description for this database is a package of candy. In some cases, two or more relatively small packets, rolls, tubes, or boxes of candy may be assembled within a larger container (i.e. a wrapping, bag, etc.). In such cases, the term “package” refers to the larger, exterior container.

The record for each package should contain the following information:

 Candy number (numeric field). This field is fairly self-explanatory. However,

since the records are being numbered automatically, please be sure that if you

make a mistake in entering a record, you edit that record rather than deleting it

and starting over. If you delete the record, you will not be able to reuse the

number.  Candy brand (text field). This is the name of the candy manufacturer (i.e. Nestlé),

analogous to the make of a car. If the brand is not known, please enter “other.”

 Candy name (text field). This is the trade name of a specific type of candy (i.e.

Crunch bar), analogous to model of a car. If the name is not known, please enter

“other.”

 Candy character (text field). If either a candy or its package (or dispenser) is

shaped or otherwise decorated to resemble a Halloween-themed character or

object (i.e. “ghost” or “witch”), please enter a word or term describing that

character or object. If not, enter “none.”

 Candy type (text field). Enter the generic name term for this candy (i.e. licorice,

chocolate, taffy, etc.). If the candy has no commonly known generic name, enter

“other.” If you are aware of more than one name for a candy (i.e. “lollipop” and

“sucker”), please enter each name, separating them by pressing the F7 key.

 Candy packaging (text field). From the validation list, please select the term that

most satisfactorily describes the outermost packaging of the candy. If none of the

terms are satisfactory, select “other.”

 Weight (numeric field). Enter the weight found on the package of candy, in

grams, not ounces. Round up to the nearest tenth. For example, 26.25 g should

be entered as 26.3 g. If the weight isn’t marked, leave this field empty.

 Candy flavor (text field). Enter a word or term describing the flavor of the candy

(i.e. “strawberry.”) If you don’t know the flavor, enter “other.” If there is more

than one different flavored candy within a package (see above for definition of

“package”), define as “assorted.” If there is more than one flavor (i.e. a layer of kiwi and a layer of strawberry) in an individual piece of candy, then enter each

flavor, separating them by pressing the F7 key. In some cases, the candy flavor

will be the same as the candy type (i.e. chocolate or licorice). This is o.k.

 Candy hardness (text field). Please select “soft” from the validation list if the

candy is creamy, malleable, and/or easy to chew. Select “hard” if the candy is

brittle (i.e. you could break your teeth on it). If the candy is neither clearly hard

nor clearly soft, select “medium.”

 Candy filling (text field). Enter a word or term describing the candy’s filling, if

any. For the purposes of this database, a “filling” is any edible substance or

object fully or partially encircled, circumscribed, supported, or surrounded by the

candy. If the candy has no filling, enter “none.”

5. Our Records

Candy Number 1

Candy Brand Wrigley's

Candy Name Hubba Bubba

Candy Character pumpkin

Candy Type gum

Candy Packaging Dispenser

Candy Weight - grams 42.5

Candy Flavor assorted

Candy Hardness Soft

Candy Filling no filling

Candy Number 2

Candy Brand Pez Candy, Inc.

Candy Name Pez

Candy Character witch Candy Type other

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 3

Candy Brand Oddzon, Inc

Candy Name Bug Factor

Candy Character insect

Candy Type lollipop

Candy Packaging Cellophane

Candy Weight - grams 22

Candy Flavor orange

Candy Hardness Hard

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 4

Candy Brand Wrigley's

Candy Name Hubba Bubba

Candy Character ghost

Candy Type gum

Candy Hardness Soft

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 5

Candy Brand Tootsie

Candy Name Caramel Apple Pops

Candy Character none Candy Type lollipop

Candy Packaging Cellophane

Candy Flavor caramel

Candy Hardness Hard

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 6

Candy Brand Kencraft

Candy Name Halloween shaped pops

Candy Type lollipop

Candy Packaging cellophane

Candy Flavor marshmallow

Candy Hardness Hard

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 7

Candy Brand Russel Stover

Candy Name Peanut butter ghost

Candy Type chocolate

Candy Packaging foil

Candy Flavor chocolate

peanut butter

Candy Hardness Soft

Candy Filling peanut butter Candy Number 8

Candy Brand Mars, Inc

Candy Name Snickers

Candy Character pumpkin

peanut

Candy Hardness Soft

Candy Filling peanut

caramel

Candy Number 9

Candy Brand Russel Stover

Candy Name Buzzard Nest

Candy Character nest

coconut

Candy Hardness Medium

Candy Filling jelly beans

coconut

Candy Number 10

Candy Name Halloween Shaped Pops

Candy Character pumpkin Candy Type lollipop

Candy Flavor orange

Candy Hardness Hard

Candy Filling none

6. Exchange Team’s Records

Candy Number 1

Candy Brand Hubba Bubba

Candy Name Twist'n Pour

Candy Character Pumpkin

Candy Type Buble Gum

Candy Packaging dispenser

Candy Flavor Bubble Gum

Candy Hardness medium

Candy Filling gum

Candy Number 2

Candy Brand Pez

Candy Name Pez

Candy Character Witch

Candy Type Other

Candy Flavor orange

strawberry

Candy Hardness medium Candy Filling none

Candy Number 3

Candy Brand other

Candy Name Bug Factor Lollipop

Candy Character bug

Candy Type lollipop

Candy Flavor orange

Candy Hardness hard

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 4

Candy Brand Hubba Bubba

Candy Name Twist'n Pour

Candy Character Ghost

Candy Type gum

Candy Packaging dispenser

Candy Flavor bubble gum

Candy Filling gum

Candy Number 5

Candy Brand other

Candy Name Caramel Apple Pops

Candy Character none

Candy Type lollipop

Candy Flavor carmel apple

Candy Hardness hard

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 6

Candy Type lollipop

Candy Flavor other

Candy Hardness hard

Candy Filling none

Candy Number 7

Candy Brand Russell Stover

Candy Name Peanut Butter Ghost

Candy Type peanut butter

chocolate

Candy Flavor peanut butter

chocolate

Candy Hardness soft

Candy Filling peanut butter

Candy Number 8

Candy Brand Mars Inc.

Candy Name Snickers Candy Character pumpkin

carmel

Candy Filling carmel

nougat

peanuts

Candy Number 9

Candy Brand Russell Stover

Candy Name Buzzard Nest

Candy Character none

coconut

Candy Filling coconut

Candy Number 10

Candy Character Pupkin

Candy Type lollipop

Candy Weight - grams 28 Candy Flavor orange

Candy Hardness hard

Candy Filling none

202-11 Project 1 Gabriel Beeler Part B

EVALUATION

Our group put a lot of thought into developing a user model for our system. We asked ourselves who might be interested in consulting a Halloween candy database, and what kind of information they would seek, and chose our fields accordingly. For instance, at one point we considered including “candy color” as one of our fields. We found color was an easily discernible attribute that distinguishes one piece of candy from another. We decided against this, however, since we did not feel that either shoppers or collectors would choose Halloween candy because of its color.

In retrospect, the one field we chose that does not seem particularly relevant to users is “packaging,” as most people probably do not care whether their candy is wrapped in cellophane or foil. Nonetheless, it was useful to think about how the candy was packaged because it helped us define and clarify our unit of analysis. A particular concern was the Pez package, consisting of one dispenser, a roll of orange-flavored Pez candies, and a roll of strawberry-flavored Pez candies, all together in one cellophane wrapper. Would the indexers from Orange County Group #1 describe the flavor as

“strawberry” and “orange”, or as “assorted”? Moreover, would they interpret “weight” to mean the weight of each individual roll of candies, or the combined weight of the dispenser and the two rolls together? We tried to eliminate any uncertainty by writing our indexing instructions as

unambiguously as possible. On the surface, it seemed that we succeeded in doing this

since the feedback from our indexers was quite positive. They stated that the instructions

were “very clear,” and said that they were able to complete the records easily in less than

30 minutes. One indexer even commented that she felt “shortchanged,” since the

experience of working with unclear instructions would have helped her “grow” more as a

database designer!

In spite (or possibly because) of our supposedly clear instructions, there were a

surprising number of discrepancies between the records we made ourselves and those

made by our indexers, as shown in the table below, where big discrepancies between

entries are identified as “major errors” and smaller discrepancies (spelling mistakes, etc.)

are identified as “minor errors” :

Field # Bran Nam Charact Typ Packagi Weig Flav Hardne Fillin d e er e ng ht or ss g majo r 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 4 2 3 erro rs mino r 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 erro rs

From the table, we can see that our two most problematic fields were “brand” and

“flavor,” each with 4 major errors and 2 minor errors. This could result in unacceptably

low recall for certain searches. For instance, a user searching O.C. group #1’s records for

candies made by Wrigley’s would get zero hits, when in fact there were actually two

Wrigley’s candies in the collection. This would amount to a recall of 0%! Similarly, a searcher looking for caramel-flavored candies would also get 0%--this time because of a spelling error.

The errors in brand name were unexpected since the brand names are printed on every package. However, in many cases, the manufacturer’s name is printed in tiny letters in an obscure location (near the ingredient list or copyright notice, for instance). In addition, in some cases, the candy name has several parts (i.e. Hubba Bubba

Twist’n’Pour), where the first part of the name could easily be misconstrued as the brand name. This problem could probably be not be eliminated altogether, but could be lessened if our instructions included tips on where to find the brand name and/or encouraged the indexers to look carefully at the entire package, including the fine print, before making this entry.

We had anticipated that there would be errors in the flavor field, since flavor is somewhat subjective and is not always marked on the package. In addition, some candies or packages of candies contain multiple flavors. We tried to avoid problems in this area by providing explicit instructions on when to enter “other” in the flavor field, when to enter “assorted,” and when to enter several flavors individually. Unfortunately, we were not successful in this, since our indexers identified the Pez flavors individually rather than as “assorted” as we intended. In addition, they did not identify “marshmallow” as the flavor of the marshmallow-coated ghost lollipops as we did. On the other hand, they identified the Hubba Bubba bubble gum as “bubble gum” flavored, which could be a viable name for a variety of bubble gum flavors, as opposed to using the word “assorted”, which we chose. In order to reduce the error potential of this field, providing instructions to label assorted bubble gum flavors as simply “bubble gum” would probably work out well. Providing as many options and potential options as possible is key for this field, as the variety of flavors that candies have is exhaustive, and rather than trying to address each flavor individually, a more broad-ranging, umbrella term would be most helpful and user-friendly, so long as the proper flavor can be found in the end. Perhaps multiple flavor search fields would be the answer, with the initial field being very broad so as to eliminate the possibility of user error in attempting to define a specific flavor, and gradually becoming more specific (walking the user through the identification of the proper flavor).

The next most problematic field was “filling”, with three major errors and two minor ones. Once again, we anticipated problems and tried to prevent them by giving a detailed definition of the term “filling” in our instructions, but we were not completely successful. We thought that we made it clear that the bug in the Bug Factor lollipop should be considered a filling, but the indexers did not interpret it this way. We also wanted the indexers to record the jellybean eggs in the Russell Stover Buzzard Nest as a filling, but they did not. In the latter case, the problem may have been a failure to see the jelly beans listed on the ingredient list, rather than a misinterpretation of our instructions

If we had given more specific instructions relating to how certain fillings should be handled (jelly beans for example), we could have probably avoided the error. One of the biggest problems was finding the relevant information on the packaging, as very often the packaging is very ambiguous in providing clear details as to flavor, filling, brand, name, etc. More detailed instructions, possibly even providing diagrams as to how to identify the proper information for the given field, would solve this issue. In some respects, the minor errors in this field were more consequential than the major ones. After all, the number of users searching for “insect” or “jelly bean” fillings would probably be very small. The number of people searching for “caramel” or “peanut” would be greater, and the fact that people would miss records because of spelling errors

(or an added letter “s”) is bothersome. In addition, people searching for “caramel” or

“peanut” because of allergy concerns might have more at stake in the search then people simply looking for novelty candies to add to their collections. Fortunately, these minor errors could have been eliminated very easily if we had instructed the indexers (and ourselves) to use the Textbase spellchecker. In addition, it would be a good idea to instruct our end users to use truncation (i.e. peanut* rather than peanuts) in their queries so they would find what they wanted regardless of how the records were entered.

The results for the remainder of our fields were satisfactory, with two or fewer major errors in each, as follows:

 Name: The errors here were a direct result of errors in the “brand” field, so by

fixing the latter, we would eliminate the former.

 Hardness: These errors probably could not have been avoided since this is a

subjective field, but once again, there is some consolation in the fact that

searchers would probably not use this field as a point of entry.

 Packaging: This is rather interesting, since the single error here occurred because

of us not following our own instructions (or of writing instructions that did not

match our own records), rather than a misinterpretation on the indexers’ side. OC

group #1 was correct in choosing “cellophane” for the packaging rather than

“dispenser,” since that what a literal reading of the instructions called for. However, “dispenser” seems like a more useful term to have in the records, since

that is what most collectors would actually be interested. Thus, it might be a good

idea to amend the instructions for this field to say something like:

If the candy is packaged in or with a dispenser, please

select “dispenser’” from the validation list. Otherwise,

please select the term that most satisfactorily describes the

outermost packaging of the candy. If none of the terms is

satisfactory, select “other.”

 Type: Although there were no major errors here, it is interesting to note that once

again we did not follow our own instructions, which indicated that both “lollipop”

and “sucker” should be entered for the lollipops. Most likely this is because

“sucker” isn’t commonly used here in Southern California, although it is more

common in certain parts of the U.S. Probably rather than instructing the indexers

to list all synonymous terms they could think of, it would have been better to

provide a substitution list or thesaurus.

 Character: The only major error here happened because the indexers did not

consider a buzzard nest to be a Halloween character, which is understandable.

Perhaps we could remedy this by including a definition of “character” in the

instructions (something like “any shape that resembles an object other than

candy”, or “any non-standard shape”). A minor error was that the indexers only

entered the term “bug” for the Bug Factor lollipop, where we would have liked

them to enter both “bug” and “insect”. An error that could have happened, but

didn’t, would have been if the indexers had used the term “jack ‘o’lantern” rather than “pumpkin.” Again, the best way around this would have been to provide a

substitution list or thesaurus.

In addition, a challenge field seemed to be candy weight and how to properly

measure it.

We ended up taking the easy route for this field by taking the weight in grams from the candy package. The problem with this would have been if we had a piece of candy with no information on it. In our instructions, we said to put a null value or a blank if this happened. A more inclusive way to measure weight would have been with a food scale and the blank label problem would have been eliminated. The problem with this way is it also would have left more room for user error and resulted in more varied results.

Overall, we left a bit too much up to our indexing instructions and our indexers and we expected to follow them flawlessly. Another validation list would have increased the chances that the other team accurately entering in values that we desired. Our project only included two validation lists and with the inclusion of more controlled vocabulary, we could have gained some more consistency and data integrity. A good field to add another list would have been in the candy Character field as the jack ‘o’lantern vs. pumpkin problem would have been resolved. As we found out it is a great deal harder to attain the desired results for uniform data entry using detailed instructions rather than validation lists. No matter how detailed, the indexer can break a rule and the system has no way of rejecting the entry. It seemed we stumbled upon many design issues because of the level of difficulty of our design but we seemed to learn more because of these obstacles.