skip to main content
10.1145/3411764.3445209acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

IM Receptivity and Presentation-type Preferences among Users of a Mobile App with Automated Receptivity-status Adjustment

Published: 07 May 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Researchers have long attempted to estimate instant-messaging (IM) users’ attentiveness, responsiveness, and interruptibility. Yet, IM users’ self-presentation of their receptivity, and their perceptions of automated adjustment/revelation of their receptivity status (e.g., Facebook Messenger’s green dot that deems a user to be “active”), remain under-explored. We therefore told our 43 participants that our IM app, IMStatus, was capable of automatically estimating and adjusting their receptivity status to responsive, attentive, or interruptible based on their smartphone activity. These statuses were also presented to their IM contacts in three different styles. Over a two-week period, the participants rarely chose the status interruptible, and when they did, it was usually to indicate low availability. Textual presentation was usually chosen to express statuses precisely, especially at high and low extremes of receptivity; while graphical and numeric presentations were preferred when self-perceived receptivity levels were more ambiguous. Conflicts between recipients’ and senders’ perspectives are also discussed.

References

[1]
[n.d.]. Google Home – Apps on Google Play. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.chromecast.app&hl=en_GB
[2]
Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
[3]
Daniel Avrahami and Scott E. Hudson. 2006. Responsiveness in instant messaging: predictive models supporting inter-personal communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124881
[4]
Elizabeth Bales, Kevin A. Li, and William Griwsold. 2011. CoupleVIBE: mobile implicit communication to improve awareness for (long-distance) couples. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work(CSCW ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958835
[5]
Louise Barkhuus, Barry Brown, Marek Bell, Scott Sherwood, Malcolm Hall, and Matthew Chalmers. 2008. From awareness to repartee: sharing location within social groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, Florence, Italy, 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357134
[6]
James ”Bo” Begole, Nicholas E. Matsakis, and John C. Tang. 2004. Lilsys: Sensing Unavailability. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work(CSCW ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 511–514. https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031691
[7]
James ”Bo” Begole, John C. Tang, Randall B. Smith, and Nicole Yankelovich. 2002. Work rhythms: analyzing visualizations of awareness histories of distributed groups. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work(CSCW ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1145/587078.587125
[8]
Michael Benisch, Patrick Gage Kelley, Norman Sadeh, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2011. Capturing location-privacy preferences: quantifying accuracy and user-burden tradeoffs. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 15, 7 (Oct. 2011), 679–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0346-0
[9]
Frank R. Bentley and Crysta J. Metcalf. 2007. Sharing motion information with close family and friends. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240831
[10]
Igor Bilogrevic, Kévin Huguenin, Berker Agir, Murtuza Jadliwala, and Jean-Pierre Hubaux. 2013. Adaptive information-sharing for privacy-aware mobile social networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing(UbiComp ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493432.2493510
[11]
Andreas Buchenscheit, Bastian Könings, Andreas Neubert, Florian Schaub, Matthias Schneider, and Frank Kargl. 2014. Privacy Implications of Presence Sharing in Mobile Messaging Applications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia(MUM ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677972.2677980
[12]
Matthias Böhmer, Brent Hecht, Johannes Schöning, Antonio Krüger, and Gernot Bauer. 2011. Falling asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle: a large scale study on mobile application usage. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037373.2037383
[13]
J. J. Cadiz, Gina Venolia, Gavin Jancke, and Anoop Gupta. 2002. Designing and deploying an information awareness interface. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work(CSCW ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1145/587078.587122
[14]
Yung-Ju Chang, Yi-Ju Chung, and Yi-Hao Shih. 2019. I Think It’s Her: Investigating Smartphone Users’ Speculation about Phone Notifications and Its Influence on Attendance. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Taipei, Taiwan) (MobileHCI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338286.3340125
[15]
Yung-Ju Chang and John C. Tang. 2015. Investigating Mobile Users’ Ringer Mode Usage and Attentiveness and Responsiveness to Communication. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785852
[16]
Yi-Shyuan Chiang, Ruei-Che Chang, Yi-Lin Chuang, Shih-Ya Chou, Hao-Ping Lee, I-Ju Lin, Jian-Hua Jiang Chen, and Yung-Ju Chang. 2020. Exploring the Design Space of User-System Communication for Smart-home Routine Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376501
[17]
Hyunsung Cho, Jinyoung Oh, Juho Kim, and Sung-Ju Lee. 2020. I Share, You Care: Private Status Sharing and Sender-Controlled Notifications in Mobile Instant Messaging. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1 (May 2020), 034:1–034:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392839
[18]
[18] Camille Cobb.2019. User-to-User Privacy in Social and Communications Applications. Thesis. https://digital.lib.washington.edu:443/researchworks/handle/1773/44135Accepted: 2019-08-14T22:31:29Z.
[19]
Camille Cobb, Lucy Simko, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Alexis Hiniker. 2020. User Experiences with Online Status Indicators. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376240
[20]
Tamlin S. Conner and Barbara J. Lehman. 2012. Getting started: Launching a study in daily life. In Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, US, 89–107.
[21]
Sunny Consolvo, Ian E. Smith, Tara Matthews, Anthony LaMarca, Jason Tabert, and Pauline Powledge. 2005. Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1054985
[22]
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/10.1145/2785830.2785840
[23]
Trinh Minh Tri Do, Jan Blom, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2011. Smartphone usage in the wild: a large-scale analysis of applications and context. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on multimodal interfaces(ICMI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1145/2070481.2070550
[24]
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.
[25]
Joel E. Fischer, Chris Greenhalgh, and Steve Benford. 2011. Investigating episodes of mobile phone activity as indicators of opportune moments to deliver notifications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037373.2037402
[26]
Robert S. Fish, Robert E. Kraut, Robert W. Root, and Ronald E. Rice. 1992. Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’92). Association for Computing Machinery, Monterey, California, USA, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/142750.142755
[27]
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.2003.12.016
[28]
Carla F. Griggio, Midas Nouwens, Joanna McGrenere, and Wendy E. Mackay. 2019. Augmenting Couples’ Communication with Lifelines: Shared Timelines of Mixed Contextual Information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300853
[29]
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/10.1145/2047196.2047207
[30]
Roberto Hoyle, O. H. Oberlin, Srijita Das, Apu Kapadia, Adam J. Lee, and Kami Vaniea. 2017. Was my message read?: Privacy and Signaling on Facebook Messenger. (2017). https://vaniea.com/papers/chi2017.pdf
[31]
Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2005. Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1489–1492. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1056948
[32]
Leslie K. John, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein. 2010. Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information. Journal of Consumer Research 37, 5 (08 2010), 858–873. https://doi.org/10.1086/656423
[33]
Jiro Kawakita. 1991. The original KJ method. Tokyo: Kawakita Research Institute 5 (1991).
[34]
Ryan Kelly, Daniel Gooch, and Leon Watts. 2018. ’It’s More Like a Letter’: An Exploration of Mediated Conversational Effort in Message Builder. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 87:1–87:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274356
[35]
Johannes Knittel, Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Niels Henze, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2013. Utilizing contextual information for mobile communication. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, Paris, France, 1371–1376. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468601
[36]
Michael Koch, Kai von Luck, Jan Schwarzer, and Susanne Draheim. 2018. The Novelty Effect in Large Display Deployments – Experiences and Lessons-Learned for Evaluating Prototypes. (2018). https://doi.org/10.18420/ecscw2018_3 Accepted: 2018-04-30T19:58:18Z Publisher: European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).
[37]
Andreas Komninos, Jeries Besharat, Vassilios Stefanis, and John Garofalakis. 2018. Perceptibility of Mobile Notification Modalities during Multitasking in Smart Environments. In 2018 14th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE). 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2018.00011 ISSN: 2472-7571.
[38]
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_1
[39]
Kostadin Kushlev, Bruno Cardoso, and Martin Pielot. 2017. Too tense for candy crush: affect influences user engagement with proactively suggested content. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098569
[40]
JENNIFER Lai, ANTHONY Levas, PAUL Chou, CLAUDIO Pinhanez, and MARISA Viveros. 2002. BlueSpace: personalizing workspace through awareness and adaptability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 57, 5 (Nov. 2002), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1028
[41]
Scott Lederer, Jennifer Mankoff, and Anind K. Dey. 2003. Who wants to know what when? privacy preference determinants in ubiquitous computing. In CHI ’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 724–725. https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.765952
[42]
Hao-Ping Lee, Kuan-Yin Chen, Chih-Heng Lin, Chia-Yu Chen, Yu-Lin Chung, Yung-Ju Chang, and Chien-Ru Sun. 2019. Does Who Matter? Studying the Impact of Relationship Characteristics on Receptivity to Mobile IM Messages. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, Glasgow, Scotland Uk, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300756
[43]
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/10.1145/3338286.3344387
[44]
Q. Vera Liao, Daniel Gruen, and Sarah Miller. 2020. Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376590
[45]
Rich Ling and Chih-Hui Lai. 2016. Microcoordination 2.0: Social Coordination in the Age of Smartphones and Messaging Apps. Journal of Communication 66, 5 (Oct. 2016), 834–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12251 Publisher: Oxford Academic.
[46]
Derrick C. McLean, Jeanne Nakamura, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2017. Explaining System Missing: Missing Data and Experience Sampling Method. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8, 4 (May 2017), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617708015 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
[47]
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/10.1145/3295750.3298932
[48]
Abhinav Mehrotra, Veljko Pejovic, Jo Vermeulen, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. My Phone and Me: Understanding People’s Receptivity to Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858566
[49]
Christie Napa Scollon, Chu-Kim Prieto, and Ed Diener. 2009. Experience Sampling: Promises and Pitfalls, Strength and Weaknesses. In Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener, Ed Diener (Ed.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_8
[50]
Mikio Obuchi, Tadashi Okoshi, Takuro Yonezawa, Jin Nakazawa, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2017. Interruptibility Map: Geographical analysis of users’ interruptibility in smart cities. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops). 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2017.7917588
[51]
Tadashi Okoshi, Julian Ramos, Hiroki Nozaki, Jin Nakazawa, Anind K. Dey, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2015. Attelia: Reducing user’s cognitive load due to interruptive notifications on smart phones. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom). 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOM.2015.7146515
[52]
Tadashi Okoshi, Julian Ramos, Hiroki Nozaki, Jin Nakazawa, Anind K. Dey, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2015. Reducing users’ perceived mental effort due to interruptive notifications in multi-device mobile environments. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing(UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2807517
[53]
Tadashi Okoshi, Kota Tsubouchi, Masaya Taji, Takanori Ichikawa, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2017. Attention and engagement-awareness in the wild: A large-scale study with adaptive notifications. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom). 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOM.2017.7917856 ISSN: 2474-249X.
[54]
Donald J. Patterson, Christopher Baker, Xianghua Ding, Samuel J. Kaufman, Kah Liu, and Andrew Zaldivar. 2008. Online everywhere: evolving mobile instant messaging practices. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing(UbiComp ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, Korea, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409645
[55]
Veljko Pejovic, Mirco Musolesi, and Abhinav Mehrotra. 2015. Investigating The Role of Task Engagement in Mobile Interruptibility. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct(MobileHCI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1100–1105. https://doi.org/10.1145/2786567.2794336
[56]
Martin Pielot, Bruno Cardoso, Kleomenis Katevas, Joan Serrà, Aleksandar Matic, and Nuria Oliver. 2017. Beyond Interruptibility: Predicting Opportune Moments to Engage Mobile Phone Users. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (Sept. 2017), 91:1–91:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130956
[57]
Martin Pielot, Karen Church, and Rodrigo de Oliveira. 2014. An in-situ study of mobile phone notifications. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services(MobileHCI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto, ON, Canada, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628364
[58]
Martin Pielot, Rodrigo de Oliveira, Haewoon Kwak, and Nuria Oliver. 2014. Didn’t you see my message? predicting attentiveness to mobile instant messages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 3319–3328. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2556973
[59]
Benjamin Poppinga, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2014. Sensor-Based Identification of Opportune Moments for Triggering Notifications. IEEE Pervasive Computing 13, 1 (Jan. 2014), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2014.15 Conference Name: IEEE Pervasive Computing.
[60]
Kimberly B. Pusateri, David J. Roaché, and Ningxin Wang. 2015. The Role of Communication Technologies in Serial Arguments: A Communicative Interdependence Perspective. Argumentation and Advocacy 52, 1 (June 2015), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2015.11821860 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2015.11821860.
[61]
Yasmeen Rashidi, Kami Vaniea, and L. Jean Camp. 2016. Understanding Saudis’ privacy concerns when using WhatsApp. (2016). http://www.vaniea.com/papers/usec2016.pdf
[62]
Aki Rintala, Martien Wampers, Inez Myin-Germeys, and Wolfgang Viechtbauer. 2019. Response compliance and predictors thereof in studies using the experience sampling method. Psychological Assessment 31, 2 (2019), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000662 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
[63]
Jian Raymond Rui and Siyue Li. 2018. Seeking help from weak ties through mediated channels: Integrating self-presentation and norm violation to compliance. Computers in Human Behavior 87 (Oct. 2018), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.022
[64]
Emily Schildt, Martin Leinfors, and Louise Barkhuus. 2016. Communication, Coordination and Awareness around Continuous Location Sharing. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work(GROUP ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/2957276.2957289
[65]
Vivian C. Sheer and Ronald E. Rice. 2017. Mobile instant messaging use and social capital: Direct and indirect associations with employee outcomes. Information & Management 54, 1 (Jan. 2017), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.04.001
[66]
Paul J. Silvia, Thomas R. Kwapil, Kari M. Eddington, and Leslie H. Brown. 2013. Missed Beeps and Missing Data: Dispositional and Situational Predictors of Nonresponse in Experience Sampling Research. Social Science Computer Review 31, 4 (Aug. 2013), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313479902 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
[67]
Aaron Springer and Steve Whittaker. 2019. Progressive disclosure: empirically motivated approaches to designing effective transparency. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(IUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302322
[68]
John C. Tang, Ellen A. Isaacs, and Monica Rua. 1994. Supporting distributed groups with a Montage of lightweight interactions. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work(CSCW ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/192844.192861
[69]
Alexander Thayer, Matthew J. Bietz, Katie Derthick, and Charlotte P. Lee. 2012. I love you, let’s share calendars: calendar sharing as relationship work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(CSCW ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145317
[70]
Eran Toch and Inbal Levi. 2013. Locality and privacy in people-nearby applications. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing(UbiComp ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493432.2493485
[71]
Penny Trieu, Joseph B. Bayer, Nicole B. Ellison, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Emily Falk. 2019. Who likes to be reachable? Availability preferences, weak ties, and bridging social capital. Information, Communication & Society 22, 8 (July 2019), 1096–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1405060 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1405060.
[72]
Liam D. Turner, Stuart M. Allen, and Roger M. Whitaker. 2015. Push or Delay? Decomposing Smartphone Notification Response Behaviour. In Human Behavior Understanding(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Albert Ali Salah, Ben J.A. Kröse, and Diane J. Cook (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24195-1_6
[73]
Liam D. Turner, Stuart M. Allen, and Roger M. Whitaker. 2017. Reachable but not receptive: Enhancing smartphone interruptibility prediction by modelling the extent of user engagement with notifications. Pervasive and Mobile Computing 40 (Sept. 2017), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2017.01.011
[74]
Niels van Berkel, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. The Experience Sampling Method on Mobile Devices. Comput. Surveys 50, 6 (Dec. 2017), 93:1–93:40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123988
[75]
Roel Vertegaal, Connor Dickie, Changuk Sohn, and Myron Flickner. 2002. Designing attentive cell phone using wearable eyecontact sensors. In CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 646–647. https://doi.org/10.1145/506443.506526
[76]
Neil J. Vickers. 2017. Animal Communication: When I’m Calling You, Will You Answer Too?Current Biology 27, 14 (July 2017), R713–R715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.064
[77]
Aku Visuri, Niels van Berkel, Chu Luo, Jorge Goncalves, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. Predicting interruptibility for manual data collection: a cluster-based user model. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098532
[78]
Dominik Weber, Alexandra Voit, Jonas Auda, Stefan Schneegass, and Niels Henze. 2018. Snooze! investigating the user-defined deferral of mobile notifications. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3229434.3229436
[79]
Dominik Weber, Alexandra Voit, Philipp Kratzer, and Niels Henze. 2016. In-situ investigation of notifications in multi-device environments. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing(UbiComp ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1259–1264. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971732
[80]
Jisuk Woo. 2006. The right not to be identified: privacy and anonymity in the interactive media environment. New Media & Society 8, 6 (2006), 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806069650
[81]
Rayoung Yang and Mark W. Newman. 2013. Learning from a learning thermostat: lessons for intelligent systems for the home. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing(UbiComp ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493432.2493489
[82]
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/10.1145/3025453.3025946
[83]
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/10.1145/3025453.3025662

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Pinning, Sorting, and Categorizing Notifications: A Mixed-methods Usage and Experience Study of Mobile Notification-management FeaturesProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36785798:3(1-27)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Investigating User-perceived Impacts of Contextual Factors on Opportune MomentsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765148:MHCI(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Identifying Hand-based Input Preference Based on Wearable EEGProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 202410.1145/3652920.3653028(102-118)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. IM Receptivity and Presentation-type Preferences among Users of a Mobile App with Automated Receptivity-status Adjustment
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2021
      10862 pages
      ISBN:9781450380966
      DOI:10.1145/3411764
      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].

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 07 May 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. availability
      2. mobile receptivity
      3. presence
      4. receptivity-status adjustment system

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Conference

      CHI '21
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI 2025
      ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 26 - May 1, 2025
      Yokohama , Japan

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)49
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
      Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Pinning, Sorting, and Categorizing Notifications: A Mixed-methods Usage and Experience Study of Mobile Notification-management FeaturesProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36785798:3(1-27)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2024
      • (2024)Investigating User-perceived Impacts of Contextual Factors on Opportune MomentsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765148:MHCI(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
      • (2024)Identifying Hand-based Input Preference Based on Wearable EEGProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 202410.1145/3652920.3653028(102-118)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2024
      • (2024)The Hidden Toll of Instant Messaging Use in Remote Work: Interaction Dynamics Between Subordinates and SupervisorsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642913(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
      • (2023)Stubbi: an Interactive Device for Enhancing Remote Text and Voice Communication in Small Intimate Groups through Simple Physical MovementsProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3563657.3596016(1773-1788)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2023
      • (2023)Characterizing Internet Card User Portraits for Efficient Churn Prediction Model DesignIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing10.1109/TMC.2023.324120623:2(1735-1752)Online publication date: 31-Jan-2023
      • (2023)What makes IM users (un)responsiveInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102983172:COnline publication date: 1-Apr-2023
      • (2022)Revisiting Piggyback Prototyping: Examining Benefits and Tradeoffs in Extending Existing Social Computing SystemsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35555576:CSCW2(1-28)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
      • (2022)Because I’m Restricted, 2 – 4 PM Unable to See Messages: Exploring Users’ Perceptions and Likely Practices around Exposing Attention Management Use on IM Online StatusProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517616(1-18)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media