We report from the Do Not Disturb Challenge where 30 volunteers disabled notification alerts for 24 hours across all devices. The effect of the absence of notifications on the participants was isolated through an experimental study design: we compared self-reported feedback from the day without notifications against a baseline day. The evidence indicates that notifications have locked us in a dilemma: without notifications, participants felt less distracted and more productive. But, they also felt no longer able to be as responsive as expected, which made some participants anxious. And, they felt less connected with one's social group. In contrast to previous reports, about two third of the participants expressed the intention to change how they manage notifications. Two years later, half of the participants are still following through with their plans.
Notifications & Availability On mobile phones, the largest chunk of notifications originate from messaging applications @cite_31 @cite_19 @cite_8 , such as SMS, WhatsApp, or Facebook Messenger. On such communication channels, people are assumed to be constantly co-present, and thus, constantly available for conversation @cite_18 . On average, notifications from messengers are attended within minutes @cite_26 @cite_36 @cite_35 @cite_12 @cite_8 , and people maintain this levels of attentiveness for large parts of their wake time @cite_36 . Consequently, notification-enabled computed mediated communication plays a crucial role [..] in the fragmentation of the working day @cite_10 . We hypothesize that the absence of notifications will affect the participants' ability to maintain the usual level of attentiveness.
@cite_35 @cite_18 @cite_26 @cite_8 @cite_36 @cite_19 @cite_31 @cite_10 @cite_12
2130763650 2049401656 1982984133 1685619946 2394679689 2056488459 1998431265 2087287173 1983871216
Mobile instant messaging (e.g., via SMS or WhatsApp) often goes along with an expectation of high attentiveness, i.e., that the receiver will notice and read the message within a few minutes. Hence, existing instant messaging services for mobile phones share indicators of availability, such as the last time the user has been online. However, in this paper we not only provide evidence that these cues create social pressure, but that they are also weak predictors of attentiveness. As remedy, we propose to share a machine-computed prediction of whether the user will view a message within the next few minutes or not. For two weeks, we collected behavioral data from 24 users of mobile instant messaging services. By the means of machine-learning techniques, we identified that simple features extracted from the phone, such as the user's interaction with the notification center, the screen activity, the proximity sensor, and the ringer mode, are strong predictors of how quickly the user will attend to the messages. With seven automatically selected features our model predicts whether a phone user will view a message within a few minutes with 70.6 accuracy and a precision for fast attendance of 81.2 Notifications on mobile phones alert users about new messages, emails, social network updates, and other events. However, little is understood about the nature and effect of such notifications on the daily lives of mobile users. We report from a one-week, in-situ study involving 15 mobile phones users, where we collected real-world notifications through a smartphone logging application alongside subjective perceptions of those notifications through an online diary. We found that our participants had to deal with 63.5 notifications on average per day, mostly from messengers and email. Whether the phone is in silent mode or not, notifications were typically viewed within minutes. Social pressure in personal communication was amongst the main reasons given. While an increasing number of notifications was associated with an increase in negative emotions, receiving more messages and social network updates also made our participants feel more connected with others. Our findings imply that avoiding interruptions from notifications may be viable for professional communication, while in personal communication, approaches should focus on managing expectations. Social norm has it that people are expected to respond to mobile phone messages quickly. We investigate how attentive people really are and how timely they actually check and triage new messages throughout the day. By collecting more than 55,000 messages from 42 mobile phone users over the course of two weeks, we were able to predict people's attentiveness through their mobile phone usage with close to 80 accuracy. We found that people were attentive to messages 12.1 hours a day, i.e. 84.8 hours per week, and provide statistical evidence how very short people's inattentiveness lasts: in 75 of the cases mobile phone users return to their attentive state within 5 minutes. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of attentiveness throughout each hour of the day and show that intelligent notification delivery services, such as bounded deferral, can assume that inattentiveness will be rare and subside quickly. It is well documented that interacting with a mobile phone is associated with poorer performance on concurrently performed tasks because limited attentional resources must be shared between tasks. However, mobile phones generate auditory or tactile notifications to alert users of incoming calls and messages. Although these notifications are generally short in duration, they can prompt task-irrelevant thoughts, or mind wandering, which has been shown to damage task performance. We found that cellular phone notifications alone significantly disrupted performance on an attention-demanding task, even when participants did not directly interact with a mobile device during the task. The magnitude of observed distraction effects was comparable in magnitude to those seen when users actively used a mobile phone, either for voice calls or text messaging. (PsycINFO Database Record Keywords: Driver distraction; Language: en As smartphones increasingly pervade our daily lives, people are ever more interrupted by alerts and notifications. Using both correlational and experimental methods, we explored whether such interruptions might be causing inattention and hyperactivity-symptoms associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) even in people not clinically diagnosed with ADHD. We recruited a sample of 221 participants from the general population. For one week, participants were assigned to maximize phone interruptions by keeping notification alerts on and their phones within their reach sight. During another week, participants were assigned to minimize phone interruptions by keeping alerts off and their phones away. Participants reported higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity when alerts were on than when alerts were off. Higher levels of inattention in turn predicted lower productivity and psychological well-being. These findings highlight some of the costs of ubiquitous connectivity and suggest how people can reduce these costs simply by adjusting existing phone settings. telephone or IM, which provided mediated co-presence when one was in the vicinity of a landline phone or PC, today’s mobile devices provide constant co-presence. Instant messaging is often combined with text messaging or proprietary messaging clients (e.g., BlackBerry Messenger, Apple’s iMessage, etc.), such that today’s teens send hundreds of messages per day to stay in touch with family and friends [3]. People are assumed to be constantly co-present, and thus, constantly available for conversation. This is taking a toll. There is evidence that all of these opportunities for interaction cause overload and stress. A recent Pew report suggests that nearly a third of respondents periodically turn off their phones just to take a break from all of the interaction opportunities they provide [4]. Sherri Turkle’s recent book suggests we are paying more attention to our devices than to each other [5]. Others report feeling disco-presence (i.e., being on the phone at the same time) could offer a similar experience. And one could inquire about another’s availability for mediated co-presence by calling in a more modern sense; namely, by dialing the phone and waiting for a response on the other end [1]. Instant messaging (IM) and chat systems, which became very popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s, changed this process again [2]. With these systems, one had a list of contacts who were co-present at any given time. Co-presence, for many users of these systems, suggested availability for conversation and was often reason enough to start one. The contact list made co-presence even easier to coordinate. More recently, there has been a larger socio-technical shift that we believe has significant consequences for how people coordinate around communication. In contrast to Historically, the problem of coordinating opportunities for real-time communication has been dominated by the problem of co-presence. Before there was any interactive media, people had to be in the same place to talk. Visiting somebody’s house (“calling,” in the early sense) to see if they were available or scheduling a time to meet were both good ways of coordinating. Early media such as the telephone changed this process a bit, in that people no longer needed to be physically co-present to talk. Mediated Understanding Unavailability in a World of Constant Connection Notifications are a core feature of mobile phones. They inform users about a variety of events. Users may take immediate action or ignore them depending on the importance of a notification as well as their current context. The nature of notifications is manifold, applications use them both sparsely and frequently. In this paper we present the first large-scale analysis of mobile notifications with a focus on users' subjective perceptions. We derive a holistic picture of notifications on mobile phones by collecting close to 200 million notifications from more than 40,000 users. Using a data-driven approach, we break down what users like and dislike about notifications. Our results reveal differences in importance of notifications and how users value notifications from messaging apps as well as notifications that include information about people and events. Based on these results we derive a number of findings about the nature of notifications and guidelines to effectively use them. Smartphones are considered to be "always on, always connected" but mobile users are not always attentive and responsive to incoming communication. We present a mixed methods study investigating how mobile users use ringer modes for managing interruption by and awareness of incoming communication, and how these practices and locales affect their attentiveness and responsiveness. We show that mobile users have diverse ringer mode usage, but they switch ringer modes mainly for three purposes: avoiding interruption, preventing the phone from disrupting the environment, and noticing important notifications. In addition, without signals of notifications, users are less likely to immediately attend to notifications, but they are not less responsive to those they have attended. Finally, ringer mode switches, attentiveness, and responsiveness are all correlated with certain locales. We discuss implications from these findings, and suggest how future CMC tools and notification services take different purposes for using ringer modes and locales into consideration. Smartphones have become an indispensable part of everyday life. By this time, push notifications are at the core of many apps, proactively pushing new content to users. These notifications may raise awareness, but also have the downside of being disruptive. In this paper we present a laboratory study investigating users' attitudes towards notifications and how they deal with notification settings on their smartphones. Permission requests for sending push notifications on iOS don't inform the user about the nature of notifications of this app, leaving the user to make a rather uninformed choice on whether to accept or deny. We show that requests including explanations are significantly more likely to be accepted. Our results further indicate that apart from being disruptive, notifications may create stress due to information overload. Notification settings, once assigned a preset, are rarely changed, although not necessarily matching the favored one.