skip to main content
10.1145/3406324.3410714acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Exploring the Presentation of Estimated Receptivity Status for Instant Messaging

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 February 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Researchers have developed systems estimating mobile users’ receptivity for instant messaging (IM) [4]. However, it remains unclear how users would like their estimated status to be presented to their IM contacts. We developed an Android application that estimated a user’s receptivity status and conducted a mixed-method study with 37 IM users to understand how they wanted their estimated status to be presented, including ESM and semi-structured interviews. We found that participants preferred a textual presentation to show their receptivity status over both numeric and graphical presentation. Also, participants more often modified the status from showing interruptibility to showing attentiveness and/or responsiveness than the other way. It was because participants wanted their status more informative of how fast they could read and respond to messages. Participants also more often decreased their receptivity level than increased it to show that they were busy, either real or fake.

References

  1. Lisa Feldman Barrett and Daniel J. Barrett. 2001. An Introduction to Computerized Experience Sampling in Psychology. Social Science Computer Review 19, 2 (May 2001), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900204 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Tilman Dingler and Martin Pielot. 2015. I’ll be there for you: Quantifying Attentiveness towards Mobile Messaging. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785840Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mirko Fetter. 2019. New Concepts for Presence and Availability in Ubiquitous and Mobile Computing: Enabling Selective Availability through Stream-Based Active Learning. University of Bamberg Press. Google-Books-ID: knqIDwAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. James Fogarty, Jennifer Lai, and Jim Christensen. 2004. Presence versus availability: the design and evaluation of a context-aware communication client. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61, 3 (Sept. 2004), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.12.016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, Stephen Voida, and Gloria Mark. 2011. A design space analysis of availability-sharing systems. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology(UIST ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/2047196.2047207Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Andreas Komninos, Elton Frengkou, and John Garofalakis. 2018. Predicting User Responsiveness to Smartphone Notifications for Edge Computing. In Ambient Intelligence(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Achilles Kameas and Kostas Stathis (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03062-9_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Hao-Ping Lee, Tilman Dingler, Chih-Heng Lin, Kuan-Yin Chen, Yu-Lin Chung, Chia-Yu Chen, and Yung-Ju Chang. 2019. Predicting Smartphone Users’ General Responsiveness to IM Contacts Based on IM Behavior. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, Taipei, Taiwan, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338286.3344387Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Abhinav Mehrotra, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2019. NotifyMeHere: Intelligent Notification Delivery in Multi-Device Environments. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(CHIIR ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, Glasgow, Scotland UK, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298932Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fengpeng Yuan, Xianyi Gao, and Janne Lindqvist. 2017. How Busy Are You? Predicting the Interruptibility Intensity of Mobile Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5346–5360. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025946Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Manuela Züger, Christopher Corley, André N. Meyer, Boyang Li, Thomas Fritz, David Shepherd, Vinay Augustine, Patrick Francis, Nicholas Kraft, and Will Snipes. 2017. Reducing Interruptions at Work: A Large-Scale Field Study of FlowLight. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, Denver, Colorado, USA, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025662Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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 Other conferences
    MobileHCI '20: 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
    October 2020
    248 pages
    ISBN:9781450380522
    DOI:10.1145/3406324

    Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 25 February 2021

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format