skip to main content
10.1145/1240624.1240730acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions

Published:29 April 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

We report on a field study of the multitasking behavior of computer users focused on the suspension and resumption of tasks. Data was collected with a tool that logged users' interactions with software applications and their associated windows, as well as incoming instant messaging and email alerts. We describe methods, summarize results, and discuss design guidelines suggested by the findings.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

1240730.mp4

mp4

148.5 MB

References

  1. Altmann, E.M. and J.G. Trafton Memory for Goals: An Activation-based Model. Cognitive Science, 26 (1). 39--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bailey, B.P. and J.A. Konstan 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
  3. Bannon, L., A. Cypher, S. Greenspan and M.L. Monty, Evaluation and analysis of users' activity organization. CHI 1983, 54--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Card, S.K. and A.H.H. Jr., A multiple, virtual-workspace interface to support user task switching. CHI 1987, 53--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cutrell, E., M. Czerwinski and E. Horvitz, Notification, Disruption and Memory: Effects of Messaging Interruptions on Memory and Performance. INTERACT 2001, 263--269.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Czerwinski, M., E. Cutrell and E. Horvitz, Instant Messaging and Interruption: Influence of Task Type on Performance. OZCHI 2000, 356--361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Czerwinski, M., E. Cutrell and E. Horvitz, Instant Messaging: Effects of Relevance and Timing. People and Computers XIV: HCI 2000, 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Czerwinski, M. and E. Horvitz, An Investigation of Memory for Daily Computing Events. HCI 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Czerwinski, M., E. Horvitz and S. Wilhite, A diary study of task switching and interruptions. CHI 2004, 175--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dabbish, L. and R.E. Kraut, Controlling interruptions: awareness displays and social motivation for coordination. CSCW 2004, 182--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dey, A.K. and G.D. Abowd, CybreMinder: A Context-Aware System for Supporting Reminders. in Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, (2000), 172--186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Dragunov, A.N., T.G. Dietterich, K. Johnsrude, M. McLaughlin, L. Li and J.L. Herlocker, TaskTracer: a desktop environment to support multi-tasking knowledge workers. IUI 2005, 75--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fogarty, J., A.J. Ko, H.H. Aung, E. Golden, K.P. Tang and S.E. Hudson, Examining task engagement in sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility. CHI 2005, 331--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Franke, J.L., J.J. Daniels and D.C. McFarlane, Recovering context after interruption. CogSci 2002, 310--315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzalez, V.M. and G. Mark, "Constant, Constant, Multi-tasking Craziness": Managing Multiple Working Spheres. CHI 2004, 113--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Horvitz, E. and J. Apacible, Learning and Reasoning about Interruption. ICMI 2003, 20--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Horvitz, E., J. Breese, D. Heckerman, D. Hovel and K. Rommelse, The Lumiere Project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users. UAI 1998, 256--265.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Horvitz, E., A. Jacobs and D. Hovel, Attention--Sensitive Alerting. UAI 1999, 305--313.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Iqbal, S.T. and B.P. Bailey, Investigating the Effectiveness of Mental Workload as a Predictor of Opportune Moments for Interruption. CHI 2005, 1489--1492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Iqbal, S.T. and B.P. Bailey, Leveraging Characteristics of Task Structure to Predict Costs of Interruption. CHI 2006, 741--750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Latorella, K.A., Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: Implications for data link. HFES 1998, 87--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Mark, G., V.M. Gonzalez and J. Harris. No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work. CHI 2005, 321--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. McFarlane, D.C., Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-computer Interaction. INTERACT 1999, 295--303.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. O'Conaill, B. and D. Frohlich, Timespace in the workplace: dealing with interruptions. CHI 1995, 262--263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Ovsiankina, M. Die wiederaufnahme unterbrochener handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 11. 302--379.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, S.D., S. Mercer, M.L. Cummings and E. Wang, Assisting Interruption Recovery in Supervisory Control of Multiple UAVs. HFES 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, G., P. Baudisch, G. Robertson, M. Czerwinski, B. Meyers, D. Robbins and D. Andrews, GroupBar: The TaskBar Evolved. OZCHI 2003, 34--43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Speier, C., J.S. Valacich and I. Vessey The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30 (2). 337--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Trafton, J.G., E.M. Altmann, D.P. Brock and F.E. Mintz Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58. 583--603. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Van Dantzich, M., D. Robbins, E. Horvitz and M. Czerwinski, Scope: Providing Awareness of Multiple Notifications at a Glance. AVI 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Wickens, C.D. Multiple Resources and Performance Prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 3 (2). 159--177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Zeigarnik, B. Das behalten erledigter und unerledigter handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 9. 1--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Zijlstra, F.R.H., R.A. Roe, A.B. Leonora and I. Krediet Temporal Factors in Mental Work: Effects of Interrupted Activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72. 163--185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions

    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 '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2007
      1654 pages
      ISBN:9781595935939
      DOI:10.1145/1240624

      Copyright © 2007 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: 29 April 2007

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '07 Paper Acceptance Rate182of840submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader