Optimal access to information while writing: writing in the internet age

ABSTRACT

Writing professional documents requires finding relevant related information. Although the availability of information constantly increases, seeking for information relevant for the task is not easy. A Proactive Recommendation System (PRS) retrieves information relevant to the written text and presents it without user intervention. The information presented can improve the quality of the text, but can also interrupt the process of writing. We investigated the impact of a PRS on writing in comparison to active seeking situations. We explored the effects of both ways to access information (active versus proactive) during the different stages of writing. The results suggest that people need to access information especially in the first stage of writing: planning. Participants found that proactive presentation of relevant information is more useful and less disturbing during planning.

REFERENCES

• 1: D. Alamargot and L. Chanquoy. Through the models of writing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Holland, 2001.
• 2: B. Bailey, J. Konstan, and J. Carlis. The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In Proceedings of INTERACT, pages 593--601, 2001.
• 3: J. Budzik and K. Hammond. Watson: Anticipating and contextualizing information needs. In Proceeding of the 62th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, pages 727--740, 1999.
• 4: G. Caporossi, D. Alamargot, and D. Chesnet. Using the computer to study the dynamics of handwriting processes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3245:242--254, 2004.
• 5: E. Cutrell, M. Czerwinski, and E. Horvitz. Notification, disruption, and memory: effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. In Interact 2001: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2001.
• 6: A. Deshpande, L. Boves, and M. Puerta Melguizo. À propos: Pro-active personalization for professional document writing. In SigWriting, 10th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on writing, 2006.
• 7: T. Gillie and D. Broadbent. What makes interruptions disruptive? a study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50:243--250, 1989.
• 8: Christina Haas, Writing Technology: Studies on the Materiality of Literacy, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1996
• 9: S. Hart and L. Staveland. Human Mental Workload, chapter Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research, pages 139--183. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland, 1988.
• 10: J. Hayes. The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications, chapter A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing, pages 76--97. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale New Jersey, 1996.
• 11: J. Hayes and L. S. Flower. Cognitive processes in writing, chapter Identifying the organization of writing processes, pages 3--30. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale New Jersey, 1980.
• 12: R. Kellogg. Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15:256--266, 1987.
• 13: Mari Carmen Puerta Melguizo , Lou Boves , Anita Deshpande , Olga Muñoz Ramos, A proactive recommendation system for writing: helping without disrupting, Proceedings of the 14th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: invent! explore!, August 28-31, 2007, London, United Kingdom [doi>10.1145/1362550.1362569]
• 14: M. C. Puerta-Melguizo, T. Bogers, A. Deshpande, L. Boves, and A. Van-den Bosch. What a proactive recommendation system needs - relevance, non-intrusiveness, and a new long-term memory. In Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), pages 86--98, 2007a.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors, Measurement

Keywords:
information seeking, interruptions, proactive recommendation system, writing processes