youssra
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Previous Work
Introduction
PIM examines the storing, organizing, and retrieving information such as files and emails by an individual in support of his or her roles and tasks. IF, which is a subset of PIM, is “the condition of having a user’s data in different formats, distributed across multiple locations, manipulated by different applications, and residing in a generally disconnected manner”. Email has been a subject of PIM research for many years, and is also a target for intentional fragmentation due to its frequent use in many contexts.
Definitions
Application Fragmentation – A type of IF that involves the same information being stored in separate applications. Project Fragmentation – A type of IF that involves using the same information across different format-related collections. Device Fragmentation – A type of IF that occurs when people use information across multiple devices.
Is Information Fragmentation Positive or Negative?
Previous work has found evidence of both positive and negative effects of IF. Reimer (2009) found that IF often means the user must re-find information, re-create connections with other information, and open multiple applications. This caused an increase in both time and effort before the user could access their information. Jones (2005) noted that the project fragmentation problem could negatively affect users’ email management practices since the number of collections they must organize may increase if a person has different email accounts. They also presented results that indicate that some users print everything of importance to organize a paper-based filing system, while other participants save email references into electronic files to include in a computer-based filing system. Both of these strategies are intentional organizational techniques with positive effects for the users who employ them. Tungare and Perez-Quinones (2008) found an example of IF where users were keeping two address books; one on their cell phones that stored phone numbers and another on their laptop that stored email addresses. These two contact management databases were kept separate intentionally, with a positive effect.
Application Fragmentation
Karger et al. (2006) studied application fragmentation, which they defined as having the same personal information stored in separate applications. Application fragmentation can create inefficiencies when, for instance, a user changes their name due to marriage and they are solely responsible for updating and synchronizing that information in each of their applications. A possible solution they presented is Karger et al.’s own prototype, Haystack, that uses a semistructured data model to allow users to reference arbitrary objects – a digital document, a physical document, a person, or a task (2003). These objects can then be annotated, related to other objects, viewed, and retrieved. Principles from this prototype are not used widely in practice since they do not extend existing applications, and therefore require a more dramatic change in PIM usage. William Jones et al. presents another prototype, Universal Labeler, which takes a different approach to this problem (2005). Unlike Haystack, Universal Labeler integrates personal information through extensions to existing applications, including email, and it does not require users learn a new application.
Project Fragmentation
Bergman et al. (2006) described another type of IF, namely project fragmentation. This type of IF occurs when someone is working on a single project, but stores and retrieves information items relating to that project from separate format-related collections, such as documents, emails, and favorite web sites. Bergman et al. (2006) performed a study to determine whether participants think of their information in terms of projects or data formats when organizing these collections, finding that participants were 2.5 times more likely to describe their information in terms of projects as opposed to data formats. Participants also used different data formats, often stored in the same folder, to work on a single project. These results show that Bergman and associates’ (2006) participants did in fact organize their information collections more as projects than as data formats. They described project fragmentation as being time consuming, increasing cognitive workload, and “forcing a person who is working on a single project to store and to retrieve information items from different locations with no structural connection between them”.
1. INTRODUCTION
PERSONAL!INFORMATION!MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION!FRAGMENTATION
INTENTIONAL!IF
ABOUT!THIS!STUDY
OVERVIEW!OF!THE!THESIS
2. PREVIOUS+WORK
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
IS INFORMATION FRAGMENTATION POSITIVE OR!NEGATIV?
APPLICATION!FRAGMENTATION
PROJECT!FRAGMENTATION
DEVICE!FRAGMENTATION
INTENTIONAL!IF
PIM IN!EMAIL
SUMMARY
3. METHOD
RESEARCH!QUESTIONS
PROCEDURE
PARTICIPANTS
SUMMARY
4. RESULTS
RESEARCH!QUESTION!1: EXISTENCE!OF!IF IN!EMAIL
RESEARCH!QUESTION!2:MOTIVATIONS!AND!ADVANTAGES!FOR!INTENTIONALLY!FRAGMENTING!EMAIL! INFORMATION
RESEARCH!QUESTION 3: PROBLEMS!AND!DISADVANTAGES!FROM!INTENTIONALLY!FRAGMENTING!EMAIL! INFORMATION
RESEARCH!QUESTION!4: GENERAL!EMAIL!MANAGEMENT!STRATEGIES
5. DISCUSSION
OUTCOMES
Research(Question(1:(Do(people(exhibit(IIF(in(their(email(management?
Research(Question(2:(Why(do(people(exhibit(IIF(in(their(email(management?
Research(Question(3:(What(drawbacks(do(people(experience(with(IIF?
Research(Question(4:(What(are(people’s(general(email(management(strategies?
CONNECTING!RESULTS!TO!THE!PIM LITERATURE
IMPLICATIONS!FOR!DESIGN!OF!FUTURE!PIM TOOLS
FUTURE!WORK
6. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX+A:+IRB+APPROVAL+LETTER+FOR+STUDY
APPENDIX+B:+SURVEY+QUESTIONS
