Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction

By Daniel C. McFarlane. Hum. Comput. Interact., 2002

416 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Pardon the Interruption: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda for Research on Work Interruptions (2019, background): “features of applications and software to reduce their disruptive effects and increase flexibility of handling interruptions (e.g., Dabbish & Kraut, 2008; Hodgetts, Tremblay, Vallières, & Vachon, 2015; McFarlane, 2002).”
If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution (2004, background): “Visual and Multimodal Strategies for Interruption McFarlane [18] presents 4 strategies for coordinating interruption in HCI.”
Predicting human interruptibility with sensors (2005, methodology): “3 McFarlane tested four known methods for deciding when to interrupt people [32, 33].”
Engineering Privacy (2009, background): “Generally, interruptions are less disturbing if they do not force the user to pay attention and are presented between tasks [105].”
Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal (2003, background): “For example, the operator may have more or less freedom to control the length of the interruption lag (McFarlane, 2002).”
The effects of cues on task interruption recovery in a concurrent multitasking environment (2025, unknown): “This experiment adopted immediate interruption 15 .”