skip to main content
10.1145/1357054.1357070acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Effects of intelligent notification management on users and their tasks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 April 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present a novel system for notification management and report results from two studies testing its performance and impact. The system uses statistical models to realize defer-to-breakpoint policies for managing notifications. The first study tested how well the models detect three types of breakpoints within novel task sequences. Results show that the models detect breakpoints reasonably well, but struggle to differentiate their type. Our second study explored effects of managing notifications with our system on users and their tasks. Results showed that scheduling notifications at breakpoints reduces frustration and reaction time relative to delivering them immediately. We also found that the relevance of notification content determines the type of breakpoint at which it should be delivered. The core concept of scheduling notifications at breakpoints fits well with how users prefer notifications to be managed. This indicates that users would likely adopt the use of notification management systems in practice.

References

  1. Adamczyk, P.D. and Bailey, B.P. If Not Now When? The Effects of Interruptions at Different Moments within Task Execution. Proc CHI 2004, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bailey, B.P., Adamczyk, P.D., Chang, T.Y. and Chilson, N.A. 2006. A Framework for Specifying and Monitoring User Tasks. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 22 (4): 685--708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bailey, B.P. and Konstan, J.A. 2006. On the Need for Attention Aware Systems: Measuring Effects of Interruption on Task Performance, Error Rate, and Affective State. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 22 (4): 709--732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Begole, J.B., Matsakis, N.E. and Tang, J.C. Lilsys: Sensing Unavailability. Proc. CSCW 2004, 511--514. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E. and Horvitz, E. Instant Messaging: Effects of Relevance and Timing. In People and Computers XIV: Proc. HCI 2000, 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fogarty, J. and Hudson, S.E. Toolkit Support for Developing and Deploying Sensor-Based Statistical Models of Human Situations Proc.CHI 2007, 135--144 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fogarty, J., Hudson, S.E. and Lai, J. Examining the Robustness of Sensor-Based Statistical Models of Human Interruptibility. Proc. CHI 2004, 207--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fogarty, J., Ko, A.J., Aung, H.H., Golden, E., Tang, K.P. and Hudson, S.E. Examining Task Engagement in Sensor-Based Statistical Models of Human Interruptibility. Proc. CHI 2005, 331--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fogarty, J., Lai, J. and Christensen, J. 2004. Presence Versus Availability: The Design and Evaluation of a Context-Aware Communication Client. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61 (3): 299--317. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gluck, J., Bunt, A. and McGrenere, J. Matching Attentional Draw with Utility in Interruption Proc. CHI 2007, 41--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ho, J. and Intille, S.S. Using Context-Aware Computing to Reduce the Perceived Burden of Interruptions from Mobile Devices Proc. CHI 2005, 909--918. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Horvitz, E. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces. Proc. CHI 1999, 159--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Horvitz, E. and Apacible, J. Learning and Reasoning About Interruption. Proc. ICMI 2003, 20--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Horvitz, E., Apacible, J. and Subramani, M. Balancing Awareness and Interruption: Investigation of Notification Deferral Policies. Proc.User Modeling 2005, 433--437. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Horvitz, E., Breese, J., Heckerman, D., Hovel, D. and Rommelse, K. The Lumiere Project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users. Proc. UAI 1998, 256--265. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Horvitz, E., Jacobs, A. and Hovel, D. Attention-Sensitive Alerting. Proc.UAI 1999, 305--313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Horvitz, E., Kadie, C.M., Paek, T. and Hovel, D. Models of Attention in Computing and Communications: From Principles to Applications. CACM, 2003, 52--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Horvitz, E., Koch, P., Kadie, C.M. and Jacobs, A. Coordinate: Probabilistic Forecasting of Presence and Availability. Proc. UAI 2002, 224--233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hudson, S.E., Fogarty, J., Atkeson, C.G., Avrahami, D., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Lee, J.C. and Yang, J. Predicting Human Interruptibility with Sensors: A Wizard of Oz Feasibility Study. Proc.CHI 2003, 257--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Investigating the Effectiveness of Mental Workload as a Predictor of Opportune Moments for Interruption. Proc.CHI 2005, 1489--1492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Leveraging Characteristics of Task Structure to Predict Costs of Interruption. Proc. CHI 2006, 741--750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Understanding and Developing Models for Detecting and Differentiating Breakpoints During Interactive Tasks. Proc.CHI 2007, 697--706. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Iqbal, S.T. and Horvitz, E. Disruption and Recovery of Computing Tasks: Field Study, Analysis and Directions. Proc. CHI 2007, 677--686. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. McFarlane, D.C. 2002. Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction. HCI, 17 (1): 63--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Monk, C.A., Boehm-Davis, D.A. and Trafton, J.G. 2004. Recovering from Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research. Human Factors, 46 (4): 650--663.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Newtson, D. 1973. Attribution and the Unit of Perception of Ongoing Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 (1): 28--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Zacks, J.M. and Tversky, B. 2001. Event Structure in Perception and Conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 3--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Effects of intelligent notification management on users and their tasks

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2008
        1870 pages
        ISBN:9781605580111
        DOI:10.1145/1357054

        Copyright © 2008 ACM

        Permission 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. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 April 2008

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '08 Paper Acceptance Rate157of714submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader