ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Information foraging in E-voting
Full text PdfPdf (824 KB)
Source
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
Boston, MA, USA
SESSION: Spotlight on work in progress session 1 table of contents
Pages 3799-3804  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-247-4
Authors
Ravi K. Vatrapu  Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Scott P. Robertson  University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 70,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1520340.1520574
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we present a case study of human-information interaction in the online realm of politics. The case study consists of a participant observed while searching and browsing the internet for campaign information in a mock-voting situation while taking notes that were to be shared with others. Interaction analysis of the case study data consisted of applying Information Foraging Theory to understand participant specific behaviors in searching and browsing. Case study results show skewed time allocation to activities, a tradeoff between enrichment vs. exploitation of search results, and issues with lack of scent, low value perception, and value depletion of information. Potential implications for voter-centered design of e-voting portals are discussed and future work is outlined.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. 1995. Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4 (1). 39--103.
 
3
Pirolli, P. and Card, S. 1999. Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106 (4). 643--675.
 
4
Raine, L., Horrigan, J. and Cornfield, M. The internet and campaign 2004, Pew Internet and American Life project Report, Washington, DC, 2005, Available at http:// www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2004_Campaign.pdf.
5
 
6
Robertson, S.P., Vatrapu, R. and Abraham, G., 2009. Note Taking and Note Sharing While Browsing Campaign Information. in 42th Hawai'i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-40), January 5--8, 2009, (Big Island,Hawai`i, 2009), (CD-ROM).
 
7
 
8
 
9
Smith, A. and Rainie, L. 2008. The internet and the 2008 election. Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2008_ election.pdf.
 
10
Vatrapu, R., Robertson, S. and Dissanayake, W. 2008. Are Political Weblogs Public Spheres or Partisan Spheres? International Reports on Socio-Informatics, 5 (1). 7--26.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Ravi K. Vatrapu: colleagues
Scott P. Robertson: colleagues