skip to main content
10.1145/3627508.3638333acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

PIM 2024: The Information We Need, When We Need It…: As We Get Ever Closer, Is this Ideal Still Ideal?

Published:10 March 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

An oft-repeated ideal of personal information management (PIM) is to have “the right information, at the right time, in the right place…” for the current need. But the technologies and innovations that bring us ever closer to this ideal carry costs as well as benefits. In this ninth in a series of PIM workshops, we give closer, critical consideration to the “right time, right place” ideal of PIM. Can we manage the potential downsides involved in achieving this ideal, while preserving its obvious benefits? Or should we revise our ideal of PIM?

References

  1. Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Wayne D. Gray and Wai-Tat Fu. 2001. Ignoring Perfect Knowledge In-the-world for Imperfect Knowledge In-the-head. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’01), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365061Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. William Jones, Robert Capra, Anne Diekema, Jaime Teevan, Manuel Pérez-Quiñones, Jesse David Dinneen, and Bradley Hemminger. 2015. “For Telling” the Present: Using the Delphi Method to Understand Personal Information Management Practices. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15), 3513–3522. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702523Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jones, William, Dinneen, Jesse David, Capra, Robert, Diekema, Anne R., and Pérez-Quiñones, Manuel A. 2017. Personal Information Management (PIM). Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Levine-Clark, M. and McDonald, J., Eds.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. William Jones, Sascha Donner, Bhuva Narayan, and Vanessa Reyes. 2023. It's about Time: Let's Do More to Support the Process of Aging (vs. the State of Being “Old”). In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3582740Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. William Jones, Abe Wenning, and Harry Bruce. 2014. How Do People Re-find Files, Emails and Web Pages? In iConference 2014 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/47300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Daniel J. Liebling, Paul N. Bennett, and Ryen W. White. 2012. Anticipatory search: using context to initiate search. In Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 1035–1036. https://doi.org/10.1145/2348283.2348456Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. David Maier and William Jones. 2003. Personal information management group report. In National Science Foundation (NSF) Information and Data Management (IDM) 2003 Workshop. Retrieved May 25, 2015 from http://kftf.ischool.washington.edu/docs/Summary_of_PIM2003.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gary Marchionini. 2004. From Information Retrieval to Information Interaction. In Advances in Information Retrieval, Sharon McDonald, and John Tait (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24752-4_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Gloria Mark. 2023. Attention Span: A Groundbreaking Way to Restore Balance, Happiness and Productivity. Hanover Square Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jakob Nielsen. ChatGPT Lifts Business Professionals’ Productivity and Improves Work Quality. Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved April 18, 2023 from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/chatgpt-productivity/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang. 2023. Experimental Evidence on the Productivity Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4375283Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Rebecca J. Rosen. 2012. The QWERTY Effect: The Keyboards Are Changing Our Language! The Atlantic. Retrieved October 13, 2023 from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-qwerty-effect-the-keyboards-are-changing-our-language/254211/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Steve Whittaker, Tara Matthews, Julian Cerruti, Hernan Badenes, and John Tang. 2011. Am I Wasting My Time Organizing Email?: A Study of Email Refinding. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11), 3449–3458. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979457Google 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
    CHIIR '24: Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval
    March 2024
    481 pages
    ISBN:9798400704345
    DOI:10.1145/3627508

    Copyright © 2024 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: 10 March 2024

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Work in Progress
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate55of163submissions,34%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)44
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31

    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