skip to main content
10.1145/2212776.2223743acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Emotion as an indicator for future interruptive notification experiences

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the relationship between emotion and the notification experience. We found a strong relationship between the user emotions used to describe interruptive notification experiences and whether the users wanted similar interruptive notifications again in the future. Participants were likely to want similar future interruptive notifications if they described their interruptive notification experiences using positive words. They were likely to not want similar future interruptive notifications if they described their interruptive notification experiences using negative words. The implications for the use of this knowledge in the design of intelligent systems and potential for future work are also discussed.

References

  1. Adamczyk, P. D. and Bailey, B. P. (2004). If Not Now, When? The Effects of Interruption at Different Moments Within Task Execution. Proc. ACM CHI 2004, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Avrahami, D., Fussell, S. R. and Hudson, S. E. (2008). IM Waiting, Timing and Responsiveness in Semi-Synchronous Communication. Proc. ACM CHI 2008, 285--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bailey, B. P., Konstan, J. A. and Carlis, J. V. (2001). The Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface. Proc. IFIP INTERACT 2001, 593--601.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, B. (2003). Adapting Heuristics for Notification Systems. Proc. ACM SE 2003, 144--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehner, K., DePaula, R., Dourish, P. and Sengers, P. (2007). How Emotion is Made and Measured. Int J Hum-Comp Stud, 65(4), 275--291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Booker, J. E., Chewar, C. M. and McCrickard, D. S. (2004). Usability Testing of Notification Interfaces: Are We Focused on the Best Metrics? Proc. ACM SE 2004, 128--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Botvinick, M. M. and Bylsma, L. M. (2005). Distraction and action slips in an everyday task: Evidence for a Dynamic representation of the task context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6):1011--1017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E. and Wilhite, S. (2004). A Diary Study of Task Switching and Interruptions. Proc. ACM CHI 2004, 175--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Forlizzi, J. and Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding Experience in Interactive Systems. Proc. ACM DIS 2004, 261--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gillie, T. and Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50:243--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Gluck, J., Bunt, A. and McGrenere, J. (2007). Matching Attentional Draw with Utility in Interruption. Proc. ACM CHI 2007, 41--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hein, S. (2010). Feeling Words List. Retrieved April 2011 from http://www.eqi.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Isomursu, M., Tahti, M., Vainamo, S. and Kuutti, K. (2007). Experimental evaluation of five methods for collecting emotions in field settings with mobile applications. Int J Hum-Comp Stud, 65(4):404--418. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lopatovska, I. (2011). Researching Emotion: Challenges and Solutions. Proc. iConference 2011, 225--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mankoff, J., Dey, A. K., Hsieh, G., Kientz, J., Lederer, S. and Ames, M. (2003). Heuristic Evaluation of Ambient Displays. Proc. ACM CHI 2003, 169--176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. McFarlane, D. C. (2002). Comparison of Four Primary methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction. JHCI, 17, 63--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nielsen, J. and Levy, J. (1994). Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Comm of ACM, 37(4):66--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Paul, C. L., Komlodi, A. and Lutters, W. (2011). Again?!! The Emotional Experience of Social Notification Interruptions. Proc. IFIP INTERACT 2011, 471--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Vastenburg, M. S., Keyson, D. V. and deRidder, H. (2008). Considerate home notification systems: a field study of acceptability of notifications in the home. Pers and Ubiq Comp, 12, 555--566. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Emotion as an indicator for future interruptive notification experiences

    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 EA '12: CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2012
      2864 pages
      ISBN:9781450310161
      DOI:10.1145/2212776

      Copyright © 2012 Authors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 May 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • extended-abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader