Advertisement

Attention and Intention Goals Can Mediate Disruption in Human-Computer Interaction

  • Ernesto Arroyo
  • Ted Selker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6947)

Abstract

Multitasking environments cause people to be interrupted constantly, often interfering with their ongoing tasks, activities and goals. This paper focuses on the disruption caused by interruptions and presents a disruption mediating approach for balancing the negative effects of interruptions with respect to the benefits of interruptions relevant to the user goals. Our work shows how Disruption Manager utilizing context and relationships to user goals and tasks can assess when and how to present interruptions in order to reduce their disruptiveness.

The Disruption Management Framework was created to take into consideration motivations that influence people’s interruption decision process. The framework predicts the effects from interruptions using a three-layer software architecture: a knowledge layer including information about topics related to the ongoing activity, an intermediate layer including summarized information about the user tasks and their stages, and a low level layer including implicit low granularity information, such as mouse movement, context switching and windowing activity to support fail-safe disruption management when no other contextual information is available. The manager supports implicit monitoring of ongoing behaviors and categorizing possible disruptive outcome given the user and system state. The manager monitors actions and uses common sense reasoning in its model to compare communication stream topics with topics files that are active on the desktop.

Experiments demonstrate that disruption manager significantly reduces the impact of interruptions and improve people’s performance in a multi-application desktop scenario with email and instant messaging. In a complex order taking activity, disruption manager yielded a 26% performance increase for tasks prioritized as being important and a 32.5% increase for urgent tasks. The evaluation shows that the modulated interruptions did not distract or troubled users. Further, subjects using the Disruption Manager were 5 times more likely to respond effectively to instant messages.

Keywords

Disruption Interuption Adaptive Interface Software Managers Human Computer Interaction 

References

  1. 1.
    Altmann, E.M., Gray, W.D.: Managing attention by preparing to forget. In: Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, pp. 152–155. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arroyo, E., Selker, T., Stouffs, A.: Interruptions as Multimodal Outputs: Which are the Less Disruptive? In: IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2002), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 479–483 (October 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arroyo, E., Selker, T.: Self-adaptive multimodal-interruption interfaces. In: Proceedings International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces IUI 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, B.P., Konstan, J.A., Carlis, J.V.: The effect of interruptions on task performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (2000a)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailey, B.P., Iqbal, S.T.: Understanding Changes in Mental Workload During Execution of Goal-directed Tasks and Its Application for Interruption Management. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (TOCHI) 14(4), 21–56Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey for Computer and Internet Use at Work, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ciuaw.nr0.htm
  7. 7.
    Burmistrov, I., Leonova, A.: Do interrupted users work faster or slower? The micro-analysis of computerized text editing task. In: To appear in: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI International 2003) (2003) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, M., Anderson, J.R., Sohn, M.: What Can a Mouse Cursor Tell Us More? In: Correlation of Eye/mouse Movements on Web Browsing. In: Ext. Abstracts CHI 200. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claypool, M., Le, P., Waseda, M., Brown, D.: Implicit interest indicators. In: Proceedings of the 6’4 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2001), USA, pp. 33–40 (2001); Covey: pp. 150–152 (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Covey, S.R.: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cutrell, E., Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E.: Notification, Disruption and Memory: Effects of Messaging Interruptions on Memory and Performance. In: Hirose, M. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT 2001, Tokyo, July 9-13, pp. 263–269. IOS Press(for IFIP), Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., Horvitz, E.: Instant Messaging and Interruption: Influence of Task Type on Performance. In: Paris, C., Ozkan, N., Howard, S., Lu, S. (eds.) OZCHI 2000 Conference Proceedings, pp. 356–361 (2000-B)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., Horvitz, E.: Instant Messaging: Effects of Relevance and Time. In: Turner, S., Turner, P. (eds.) People and Computers XIV: Proceedings of HCI 2000, vol. 2, pp. 71–76. British Computer Society (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., Wilhite, S.: A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, pp. 175–182 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gillie, T., Broadbent, D.: What makes Interruptions Disruptive? A study of length, Similarity and Complexity. Psychological Research 50, 43–250 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gievska, S., Sibert, J.: Examining the Qualitative Gains of Mediating Interruptions during HCI. In: The Proc. of HCI 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groff, B.D., Baron, R.S., Moore, D.L.: Distraction, attentional conflict, and drivelike behavior. Journal of Experimental School Psychology 19, 359–380 (1983)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hess, S.M., Detweiler, M.C.: Training to reduce the disruptive effects on interruptions. In: Proceedings on the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, pp. 1173–1177 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horvitz, E., Apacible, J.: Learning and reasoning about interruption. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Vancouver, BC, Canada, vol. 29 (November 2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horvitz, E., Kadie, C., Paek, T., Hovel, D.: Models of attention in computing and communication: From principles to applications. Communications of ACM 46(3), 52–59 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iqbal, S.T., Horvitz, E.: Disruption and Recovery of Computing Tasks: Field Study, Analysis and Directions. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007), San Jose, California, USA, pp. 677–686 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iqbal, S.T., Bailey, B.P.: Understanding and Developing Models for Detecting and Differentiating Breakpoints during Interactive Tasks. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007), San Jose, California, USA, pp. 697–706 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jackson, T.W., Dawson, R.J., Wilson, D.: The cost of email interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 5(1), 81–92 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Latorella, K.: Effects of Modality on Interrupted Flight Deck Performance: Implications for Data Link. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL (October 1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lieberman, H., Selker, T.: Out of Context: Computer Systems that adapt to, and learn from, context. IBM Systems Journal 39(3-4), 617–632 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P.: Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist 57, 705–717 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maes, P.: Agents that Reduce Work and Information Overload. Communications of the ACM 37(7), 31–40 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scott, M.D., Chewar, C.M.: Attuning Notification Design to User Goals and Attention Costs. Communications of the ACM 46(3), 67–72 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McFarlane, D.C.: Coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. In: Sasse, A., Johnson, C. (eds.) Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 1999). IFIP, pp. 295–303, page 121. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McFarlane, D.C., Latorella, K.A.: The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction 17(1), 1–61 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nagel, K.S., Hudson, J.M., Abowd, G.D.: Predictors of availability in home life context-mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chicago, Illinois, USA, November 06-10 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rasmussen, J.: Information processing and human-machine interaction. An approach to cognitive engineering, p. 215. North-Holland, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E.T., Lim, G., Perkins, T., Zhu, W.L.: Open Mind Common Sense: Knowledge acquisition from the general public. In: Chung, S., et al. (eds.) CoopIS 2002, DOA 2002, and ODBASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2519. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    SuwatanaPongched, P.: A More Complex Model of Relevancy in Interruptions (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tsukada, K., Okada, K.I., Matsushita, Y.: The Multi-Project Support System Based on Multiplicity of Task. In: Eighteenth Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 1994), pp. 358–363. Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE), New York (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Bergen, A.: Task interruption. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1968)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernesto Arroyo
    • 1
  • Ted Selker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ICTUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon Silicon ValleyMoffettUSA

Personalised recommendations