Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Responsiveness in IM: Predictive Models Supporting Inter-Personal Communication Daniel Avrahami, Scott E. Hudson Carnegie Mellon University www.cs.cmu.edu/~nx6.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Responsiveness in IM: Predictive Models Supporting Inter-Personal Communication Daniel Avrahami, Scott E. Hudson Carnegie Mellon University www.cs.cmu.edu/~nx6."— Presentation transcript:

1 Responsiveness in IM: Predictive Models Supporting Inter-Personal Communication Daniel Avrahami, Scott E. Hudson Carnegie Mellon University www.cs.cmu.edu/~nx6

2 Q: if an instant message were to arrive right now, would the user respond to it? in how long?  collected field data  5200 hours  90,000 messages  IM and desktop events  models predicting responsiveness  as high as 90.1%

3 why should we care?

4  IM is one of the most popular communication mediums  no longer a medium just for kids (work / parents)  sending messages is “cheap” but the potential for interruptions is great  unsuccessful communication can have a negative effect on both sender and receiver  can disrupt the receiver’s work  can leave the sender waiting for information  true not only for IM

5 how can such models help? senderreceiver q intercept w alert e mask r enhance awareness message

6 sender how can such models help? message receiver q intercept w alert e mask r enhance q

7 sender how can such models help? message receiver q intercept w alert e mask r enhance q

8 sender how can such models help? message receiver q intercept w alert e mask r enhance w q

9 sender how can such models help? awareness receiver e q intercept w alert e mask r enhance shhhh q w

10 sender how can such models help? awareness receiver r q intercept w alert e mask r enhance (carefully) not now q e w

11 related work  instant messaging  [Nardi’00, Isaacs’02, Voida’02]  interruptions and disruptions  [Gillie’89, Cutrell’01, Hudson’02, Dabbish’04]  models of presence and interruptibility  [Horvitz’02, Begole’02, Hudson’03, Begole’04, Horvitz’04, Fogarty’05, Iqbal’06]

12 coming up…  data collection  participants  responsiveness overview  predictive models  how (features and classes)  results  a closer look (new! not in the paper)  future work

13 data collection  a plugin for Trillian Pro (written in C)  non-intrusive collection of IM and desktop events

14 data collection (cont.)  privacy of data  masking messages  for example, the message “This is my secret number: 1234 :-)” was recorded as “AAAA AA AA AAAAAA AAAAAA: DDDD :-)”.  alerting buddies  hashing buddy-names  4 participants provided full content

15 participants  16 participants  Researchers: 6 full-time employees at an industrial research lab (mean age=40.33)  Interns: 2 summer interns at the industrial research lab (mean age=34.5)  Students: 8 Masters students (mean age=24.5)  nearly 5200 hours recorded  over 90,000 messages

16 responsiveness 50%

17 responsiveness 92% 50%

18 defining “IM Sessions” session 92%

19 defining “Session Initiation Attempts” used two subsets: 5 minutes (similar to Isaacs’02) and 10 minutes session

20 features  for every message:  features describing IM state. including:  Day of week  Hour  Is the Message-Window open  Buddy status (e.g., “Away”)  Buddy status duration  Time since msg to buddy  Time since msg from another buddy  Any msg from other in the last 5 minutes  log(time since msg with any buddy)  Is an SIA-5

21 features (cont.)  for every message:  features describing desktop state (following Horvitz et al. Fogarty et al. and others). including:  Application in focus  Application in focus duration  Previous application in focus  Previous application in focus duration  Most used application in past m minutes  Duration for most used application in past m minutes  Number of application switches in past m minutes  Amount of keyboard activity in past m minutes  Amount of mouse activity in past m minutes  Mouse movement distance in past m minutes

22 what are we predicting?  “Seconds until Response”  computed, for every incoming message from a buddy, by noting the time it took until a message was sent to the same buddy  examined five responsiveness thresholds  30 seconds, 1, 2, 5, and 10 minutes

23 modeling method  features selected using a wrapper-based selection technique  AdaBoosting on Decision-Tree models  10-fold cross-validation  10 trials: train on 90%, test on 10%  next we report combined accuracy

24 results

25 results (full feature-set models) all significantly better than the prior probability (p<.001)

26 results (user-centric models)  previous models used information about the buddy (e.g., time since messing that buddy)  can predict different responsiveness for different buddies  but what if you wanted just one level of responsiveness?  built models that did not use any buddy- related features

27 results (user-centric models) all significantly better than the prior probability (p<.001)

28 a closer look (new! not in the paper)

29  analysis of the continuous measure:  log(Time Until Response)  repeated measures ANOVA  Independent Variables: features subset  ParticipantID [Group] as random effect

30 DFDFDenFp Group210.010.992 HourMinutes112571.320.251 log(ownStat_dur)115641.620.203 log(timeSincOMsgBdy)112127.630.006* log(timeSincOOther)114161.500.221 log(buddyStat_dur)115040.190.667 BaseRelationship214471.030.357 MessageWindowsCount114623.890.049* FocusedWindowType189711.470.093 FocusedWindowDur114070.040.840 PrevFocusedWinFeatureDur115679.450.002* MostFocusedWinTime(30)19850.030.865 MostFocusedWinTime(600)19570.490.485 WinSwitchesCountFeature(30)110113.990.046* WinSwitchesCountFeature(600)110890.970.326 MostFocusedWinType(60)169671.420.122 MostFocusedWinType(300)2010261.620.042* MouseEventCountFeature(30)110462.980.085 MouseDistanceFeature(60)110815.080.024* MouseDistanceFeature(600)115671.600.206 KBCountFeature(30)199610.800.001* KBCountFeature(600)111601.990.158

31 EstimateDFDFDenFp Group210.010.992 HourMinutes112571.320.251 log(ownStat_dur)115641.620.203 log(timeSincOMsgBdy)-0.06852112127.630.006* log(timeSincOOther)114161.500.221 log(buddyStat_dur)115040.190.667 BaseRelationship214471.030.357 MessageWindowsCount0.08298114623.890.049* FocusedWindowType189711.470.093 FocusedWindowDur114070.040.840 PrevFocusedWinFeatureDur0.00001115679.450.002* MostFocusedWinTime(30)19850.030.865 MostFocusedWinTime(600)19570.490.485 WinSwitchesCountFeature(30)-0.16685110113.990.046* WinSwitchesCountFeature(600)110890.970.326 MostFocusedWinType(60)169671.420.122 MostFocusedWinType(300)Nom2010261.620.042* MouseEventCountFeature(30)110462.980.085 MouseDistanceFeature(60)-0.00001110815.080.024* MouseDistanceFeature(600)115671.600.206 KBCountFeature(30)-0.00372199610.800.001* KBCountFeature(600)111601.990.158

32 EstimateDFDFDenFp Group210.010.992 HourMinutes112571.320.251 log(ownStat_dur)115641.620.203 log(timeSincOMsgBdy)-0.06852112127.630.006* log(timeSincOOther)114161.500.221 log(buddyStat_dur)115040.190.667 BaseRelationship214471.030.357 MessageWindowsCount0.08298114623.890.049* FocusedWindowType189711.470.093 FocusedWindowDur114070.040.840 PrevFocusedWinFeatureDur0.00001115679.450.002* MostFocusedWinTime(30)19850.030.865 MostFocusedWinTime(600)19570.490.485 WinSwitchesCountFeature(30)-0.16685110113.990.046* WinSwitchesCountFeature(600)110890.970.326 MostFocusedWinType(60)169671.420.122 MostFocusedWinType(300)Nom2010261.620.042* MouseEventCountFeature(30)110462.980.085 MouseDistanceFeature(60)-0.00001110815.080.024* MouseDistanceFeature(600)115671.600.206 KBCountFeature(30)-0.00372199610.800.001* KBCountFeature(600)111601.990.158 “those in the back can’t see, and those in the front can’t understand…” Robert Kraut

33 a closer look (new! not in the paper)  work fragmentation  longer time in previous app …. slower  more switching (30sec) …. faster  longer mouse movements (60sec) …. faster  more keyboard activity (30 sec) …. faster  more message windows …. slower  longer time since messaging with buddy… faster  buddy ID had significant effect

34 implications for practice (in the paper)

35 implications for practice  preserving plausible deniability  making predictions about the receiver, visible to the receiver  multiple concurrent levels of responsiveness

36  presented statistical models that accurately predict responsiveness to incoming IM based on naturally occurring behavior  we plan to examine using message-content to improve modeling summary & future work awareness message  intercept  alert  mask  enhance

37 we would like to thank  Mike T (Terry)  James Fogarty  Darren Gergle  Laura Dabbish, and  Jennifer Lai

38 this work was funded in part by NSF Grants IIS-0121560, IIS-0325351, and by DARPA Contract No. NBCHD030010 thank you for more info visit: www.cs.cmu.edu/~nx6 or email: nx6@cmu.edu

39 FeatureEstimateFp buddyName[Group,SN]1.670.000* log(timeSincOMsgBdy) -0.06852 7.630.006* PrevFocusedWinFeatureDur 0.00001 9.450.002* MessageWindowsCount 0.08298 3.890.049* WinSwitchesCountFeature(30) -0.16685 3.990.046* MouseDistanceFeature(60) -0.00001 5.080.024* KBCountFeature(30) -0.00372 10.800.001* MostFocusedWinType(300)1.620.042*


Download ppt "Responsiveness in IM: Predictive Models Supporting Inter-Personal Communication Daniel Avrahami, Scott E. Hudson Carnegie Mellon University www.cs.cmu.edu/~nx6."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google