A proactive recommendation system for writing: helping without disrupting

ABSTRACT

Motivation -- Finding appropriate information while writing a scientific paper is essential, but also difficult and time consuming. A Proactive Recommender System (PRS) retrieves information relevant to the text being written, and presents it automatically. However, current PRSs overlook that writing is a demanding task, affected by interruptions. We look for those moments during writing where finding information is important and where proactive presentation interrupts least.

Our goal is to develop a PRS for professional writers that presents information non-intrusively and timely so as to minimize disturbing the writing process.

Research approach -- Finding information is most needed during Reviewing and Planning. In two experiments we explore the effects of a PRS during these phases.

Findings -- PRSs speed up writing and improve the quality of the text compared to situations where writers have to look for information actively.

Originality/Value -- Our research will change the design of PRSs and enhance our understanding of complex cognitive tasks such as writing and how electronic information processing tools affect them.

Take away message -- We can turn interruptions in complex cognitive tasks into an advantage in terms of time and the quality, provided that the interruption comes at the right time and the information offered is relevant and accurate. Future research should focus on precisely this: when are interrupts least disturbing and how to make PRSs more accurate and relevant.

References

1. Bailey, B. P., Konstan, J, and Carlis, J. V. (2000). Measuring the effects of interruptions on task performance in the user interface. In: IEEE Conferences on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 752--762.
2. Berninger, V., Whitaker, D. Yuen Feng, Swanson, H. L. & Abbott R. D. (1996). Assessment of planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology, 23--52.
3. Budzik, J. and Hammond, K. (1999). Watson: Anticipating and Contextualizing Information Needs. Proc. 62nd Ann. Meeting Am. Soc. for Information Science, 727--740.
4. Dansac, C. and Alamargot, D. (1999). Accessing referential information during text composition: when and why? In M. Torrance and D. Galbraith (Eds.). Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production, pp.76--97. Amsterdam University Press.
5. Deshpande, A., Boves, L. and Puerta Melguizo, M. C. (2006). À propos: Pro-active personalization for professional document writing. SigWriting, 10^th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on writing. September, 2006. Antwerp, Belgium.
6. Hayes, L. S. and Flower, J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. IN: Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. eds. Cognitive Processes in Writing, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 3--30.
7. Iqbal, S. T., Adamczyk, P. D., Zheng, X. S., and Bailey, B. P. (2005). Towards and index of opportunity: Understanding changes in mental workload during task execution. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 311--320.
8. Maglio, P. P. and Campbell, C. S. (2000). Tradeoffs in displaying peripheral information. Proceedings of the CHI 2000 conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York: ACM Press, 241--248.
9. Olive, T. (2004). Working memory in writing: Empirical evidence from the dual-task technique. European Psychologist, 9, 32--4.
10. Piolat, A., Kellogg, R. T. and Farioli, F. (2001) The triple task technique for studying writing processes: On which task is attention focused? Current Psychology Letters: Behaviour, Brain & Cognition, 4, 67--83.
11. Rhodes, B. J. (2000). Just-in-time Information Retrieval, Phd Thesis, MIT.
12. Zijlstra, F. R. H., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., and Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal Factors in Mental Work: Effects of Interrupted Activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 163--185.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)