skip to main content
10.1145/2556288.2557013acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Overload is overloaded: email in the age of Gmail

Published:26 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

The term email overload has two definitions: receiving a large volume of incoming email, and having emails of different status types (to do, to read, etc). Whittaker and Sidner proposed the latter definition in 1996, noticing that email inboxes were far more complex than simply containing incoming messages. Sixteen years after Whittaker and Sidner, we replicate and extend their work with a qualitative analysis of Google's Gmail. We find that email overload, both in terms of volume and of status, is still a problem today. Our contributions are 1) updating the state of email overload, 2) extending our understanding of overload in the context of Gmail and 3) comparing personal with work email accounts: while work email tends to be status overloaded, personal email is also type overloaded. These comparisons between work and personal email suggest new avenues for email research.

References

  1. Bellotti, V., Ducheneaut, N., Howard, M., and Smith, I. Taking email to task: The design and evaluation of a task management centered email tool. Proc. CHI, 2003. 345--352. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bellotti, V., Ducheneaut, N., Howard, M., Smith, I., and Grinter, R. Quality vs. quantity: Email-centric task- management and its relationship with overload. Human-Computer Interaction, 2005. 20(1-2): 89--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Civan, A., Jones, W., Klasnja, P., and Bruce, H. Better to organize personal information by folders or by tags : The devil is in the details. Proc. ASIS&T, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. comScore, It's a Social World: Top 10 Need-to-Knows About Social Networking and Where It's Headed, in comScore Whitepaper. December 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. comScore, Digital Omnivores: How Tablets, Smartphones and Connected Devices are Changing U.S. Digital Media Consumption Habits, in comScore Whitepaper. October 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dabbish, L. A., Kraut, R. E. Email Overload at Work: An Analysis of Factors Associated with Email Strain. Proc. CSCW, 2006. 431--440. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Donath, J. 2004. Visualizing Email Archives (Draft).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ducheneaut, N., Belloti, V. Email as a Habitat: an exploration of embedded personal information management. Interactions. September 2001. 30--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fisher, D., Brush, A. J., Gleave, E., and Smith, M. Revisiting Whittaker & Sidner's "Email Overload" Ten Years Later. Proc. CSCW, 2006. 309--312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Hogan, B., Fisher, D., A Scale for Measuring Email Overload. Microsoft Research Technical Report. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaye, J., Vertesi, J., Avery, S., Dafoe, A., David, S., Onaga, L., Rosero, I., and Pinch, T. To have and to hold: Exploring personal archive. Proc. CHI, 2006. 275--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mackay, W. More than Just a Communication System: Diversity in the Use of Electronic Mail. Proc. CSCW, 1998. 344--353. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pichai, S. Chrome & Apps @ Google I/O: Your web, everywhere. Google Official Blog. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Renaud, K., Ramsay, J., and Hair, M. "You've Got EMail!"... Shall I Deal With It Now? Electronic Mail From the Recipient's Perspective. International Journal Of Human-Computer Interaction, 2006. 21: 313--332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Rodden, K., Leggett, M. Best of Both Worlds: Improving Gmail Labels with the Affordances of Folders. In Proc. CHI Extended Abstracts, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shen, J., O. Brdiczka, and Y. Ruan, A comparison study of user behavior on Facebook and Gmail. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013. 29: 2650--2655. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Venolia, G., Neustaedter, C. Understanding sequence and reply relationships within email conversations: A mixed-model visualization. Proc. CHI, 2003. 361--368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Witte, J., and Hampton, K. Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital American Behavioral Scientist, 2001. 45: 436--455.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Whittaker, S., Matthews, T., Cerruti, J., Badenes, H., and Tang, J. Am I wasting my time organizing email? A study of email refinding. Proc. CHI, 2001. 3449--3458. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Whittaker, S., Sidner, C. Email overload, exploring personal information management of email. Proc. CHI, 1996. 276--283. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Overload is overloaded: email in the age of Gmail

    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 '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2014
      4206 pages
      ISBN:9781450324731
      DOI:10.1145/2556288

      Copyright © 2014 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 the author(s) 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: 26 April 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate465of2,043submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader