Prior research suggests that interruptions by software components are undesirable and detrimental in many work scenarios. However, there are clear instances where interruptions can conceivably provide a net benefit. For example, interruption is appropriate when reminding a user to accomplish an important task instead of working on lower value activities. This paper examines the pros and cons of interruption and how interruption should occur in the context of an integrated intelligent assistant system. Results from a study and future directions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamczykP. D.BaileyB. P.If Not Now, When?: The Effects of Interruption at Different Moments Within Task Execution. CHI 2004 Proceedings. ACM Press (2004), 271–278.
2.
AdamczykP. D.IqbalS. T.BaileyB. P.A Method, System, and Tools for Intelligent Interruption Management. TAMODIA 2005, (2005), ACM Press, 123–126.
3.
BaileyBPKonstanJACarlisJVThe Effects of Interruption on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in User Interface. Interact, 2001, 593–601.
4.
BaileyB. P.KonstanJ. A.On the Need for Attention-aware Systems: Measuring Effects of Interruption on Task Performance, Error Rate, and Affective State. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, (2006), 685–708.
5.
BilsusD.HilbertD. M.Maynes-AminzadeD.Improving Proactive Information Systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Intellent User Interfaces. ACM Press (2005).
EdwardsS. M.LiHLeeJ.Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop-up Ads. Journal of Advertising, (2002), 83–95.
8.
FreedM.CarbonellJ.GordonG.MyersB.SiewiorekD.SmithS.SteinfeldA.TomasicA. (2008). RADAR: A personal assistant that learns to reduce email overload. AAAI Integrated Intelligence.
9.
GluckJ.BuntA.McGrenereJ.Matching Attentional Draw with Utility in Interruption. CHI 2007 Proceedings. ACM Press (2007), 41–50.
10.
HorvitzEApacibleJ.Learning and Reasoning about Interruption. Proceedings of ICMI, 2003, 20–27.
11.
HudsonJ. M.ChristensenJ.KellogW. A.EricksonT.“I'd be Overwhelmed, but It's Just One More Thing to Do:” Availability and Interruption in Research Management. CHI 2002 Proceedings, ACM Press (2002), 97–104.
12.
HudsonSFogartyJAtkesonCAvrahamiDForlizziJKielerSLeeJYangJ.Predicting Intteruptibility with Sensors: A Wizard of Oz Feasibility Study. CHI Proceedings2003, 257–264.
13.
HuiBBoutilierC.Who's Asking for help? A Bayesian Approach to Intelligent Assistance.
14.
MarkGGonzalezVMHarrisJ.No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work. CHI 2005 Proceedings, ACM Press2005, 321–330.
15.
McCrickardD. S.CzerwinskiMBartramD.Introduction: Design and Evaluation of Notification User Interfaces. International Journal of Human-Coputer Studies (2003), 509–514.
16.
McCrickardD. S.ChewarC. M.SomervellJ. P.NdiwalanaA.A Model for Notification Systems Evaluation—Assessing Usr Goals for Multitasking Activity. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interation, (2003), 312–338.
17.
MiyataYNormanD. A.Psychological Issues in Support of Multiple Activities. In: NormanD. A.DraperS. W.User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human—Computer Interaction (1986). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
OulasvirtaAAlovaaraA.A Cognitive Meta-Analysis of Design Approaches to Interruptions in Intelligent environments. CHI 04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, (2004), 1155–1158.
