Comparación de los componentes del CDC en el diseño e implementación de la unidad didáctica.

Figure 6.11 gives an indication of the level of use of the mobile application by the Mobile+Desktop group. This Figure depicts multiple responses made by each participant who completed the weekly surveys. A total of 34 responses were recorded for these results out of a possible 36. This table shows a summary of the number of times the participants used the mobile application for each week of the study. For 7 out of the 34 responses to the weekly survey, participants used the mobile application more than twice daily indicating a heavy mobile need. A further 7 responses used it either daily or twice daily. Closer analysis of this data indicated that participants responses were relatively consistent over the four weeks. Where use might have dropped significantly an explanation was often given. As an example, Participant M5 reported using the mobile application twice daily or daily in Weeks 1, 2 and 4 of the study. Week 3 they reported they had not used it at all, but indicated that they had been on away on holidays and did not have any need to manage her tasks. The mobile usage of Participant M8 also dropped through the trial, but was attributed to a phone problems where he had to uninstall the RTM application.

FIGURE6.6: Number of times the Mobile+Desktop participants used the RTM mobile application per week

“The eureka moment of the day is often only 3 seconds and if you don’t record it then and there you get caught up in the 5 other meetings, websites to do and shopping. It allowed me to come back to interesting ideas and focus on them during the natural pauses of a day” — Participant M8

6.3 UBIQUITY AND MOBILE TASK MANAGEMENT 95 Interestingly, a large number of Desktop participants also reported wanting to access RTM when mobile, and attributed accessibility as a key barrier affecting the effectiveness of their use. Multiple participants from the desktop group identified their need to prioritise tasks when mobile because when they are busy at work trying to complete multiple tasks and it does not seem useful to plan, over do in this environment. Desktop participant D9 reported that she mentally plans her day on the bus ride to work.

“It just didn’t suit me for work because it is on my computer. I’ve already got email, internet and cybernews open so it is just another window I need to monitor on my screen. If I had it on my mobile it would change it because I think about things when I am out and about.” — Participant D9

Mobile need to plan

Participants reported used both the desktop and mobile application for planning and reflection. Six out of 9 participants mentioned that they had used the mobile application to complete tasks. A participant from the desktop group specifically identified their need to prioritise tasks when mobile because when they are busy at work trying to complete multiple tasks and it does not seem useful to plan, over do in this environment. Another Desktop participant reported that she mentally plans her day on the bus ride to work.

Level of integration achieved

The need for better integration with calendars, email and other resources to complete tasks was a strong trend identified by both populations of participants. Where some Mobile+Desktop participants reported finding a complementary strategy for use of RTM to address lack of integration as described above, Desktop participants found the lack of integration a significant barrier to use. Figure 6.7 reports on the Mobile+Desktop and Desktop populations responses to what negatively contributed to the effectiveness of RTM. The Desktop responses are indicated in purple, the Mobile+Desktop in green. The issue of integration was recorded often by both populations, as seen on the far left of the graph.

In addition to the lack of integration, the issue of mobility was also reported in response to this question by four participants from the Desktop population. This further reinforces the importance of mobility to the Desktop population.

FIGURE6.7: Mobile and Desktop response

6.4 The nature of mobile versus desktop use

Comparison of effectiveness

Figures 6.4, , 6.11 and 6.10 show the different levels of effectiveness for each of the desktop and mo- bile application of RTM, and a combined effectiveness using both. The Desktop group did not have access to the mobile application, so they did not contribute to the mobile or combined scores. Table ?? summarises these responses by listing the median response from each population. It can be seen that the Mobile+Desktop population found the desktop application less effective than the mobile. Interest- ingly, the combination of using both the mobile and desktop application was not seen as more effective than using just the mobile application by this population. In some instances, the combined effectiveness score was below that of the purely mobile score. Participant M4 rated the desktop application as neither effective or ineffective, the mobile as highly effective and the combination as somewhat effective. The median effective value for the Desktop population was 4, indicating they found the desktop application somewhat effective.

“I used the mobile application almost exclusively. I found no need for the desktop applicaiton as it duplicated some of the functions I have with email and calendar, which are already on both the phone and the desktop" — Participant M4

6.4 THE NATURE OF MOBILE VERSUS DESKTOP USE 97

FIGURE6.8: Effectiveness of the RTM desktop application reported by Desktop group

FIGURE 6.9: Effectiveness of the RTM desktop application reported by Mo- bile+Desktop group

FIGURE 6.11: Effectiveness of the combination of both applications reported by Mo- bile+Desktop group

Mobile+Desktop Median Desktop Median

Desktop application 3 4

Mobile application 4 -

Combined use of both applications 4 -

TABLE6.6: Effectiveness of the different RTM applications reported by participants

Coordination at desktop

Some participants found the desktop application of RTM effective purely for coordination purposes. Participant D8 was Participant M9 ’s executive assistant. They used RTM so they could both access a shared list of tasks, and reported very minimal use for other purposes. This was particularly useful as Participant M9 is extremely busy and spends the majority of his time away from a desktop treating patients. He is also required to travel overseas regularly as part of his job. They found sharing a list in RTM much more effective over their previous method as it allowed them to access a syncronised list of tasks. Participant D8 did not have to send another email if they wanted to update the list, and was provided with immediate feedback when tasks were completed. Participant M9 noted that using the tool had improved prioritisation between himself and his assistant as he knew that the list he was looking at represented the most up to date tasks. Even though participant M9 had access to the mobile tool and is away from his desktop often, he preferred using RTM on the desktop. This was seen to be a result of learnability issues using the mobile device as he was a new iPhone user and was tentative to do anything other than look at his list when mobile.

Tasks entered when mobile

All except one Mobile+Desktop participants added tasks on using the mobile application indicating a there was a strong mobile need for task capture from this group. The affordance of the mobile application

6.5 PLANNING AND REFLECTION WHEN MOBILE 99 of RTM to provide lightweight capture of tasks was heavily utilised by Mobile+Desktop participants. These were captured with the intention that they would be turned into tasks at a later date, indicating a function of planning. The capture of tasks was used the mobile application to add tasks with a few words, but would still use paper to record shopping lists. Participants also mentioned entering a diversity of tasks into the mobile application. A diversity of tasks were entered into the Mobile application including small tasks, tasks without strict deadlines (such as important but not urgent personal tasks), tasks with strict deadlines (such as events), short term tasks, routine tasks, actionable tasks, tasks to give a sense of achievement, ideas and shopping lists indicating the flexibility of functions for this tool. Tasks entered at desktop

Tasks were captured in different ways with the mobile application compared to the desktop. Some par- ticipants reported adding tasks in blocks through the desktop application, while others captured tasks exclusively on their mobile in a more sporadic nature. Participant D7 re-entered paper lists that she had created during the day into the desktop application to begin with, but soon found this method ineffec- tive and resorted back to using their diary. As mentioned previously, all except one Mobile+Desktop participants added tasks on using the mobile application indicating a there was a strong mobile need from this group. They were divided however, on which application better supported the capture of tasks. Some participants preferred the mobile application, finding the desktop fiddly, whereas others preferred the desktop. This could indicate differing needs or usability preferences amongst this population. The intuitive date chooser was very well received by the Desktop group indicating capture must be quick, and intuitive. Considering the diversity of tasks, task capture should also be flexible to accommodate for differing task management styles and allow for tasks to be captured out of context.

6.5 Planning and reflection when mobile

When defining the goals of this thesis and the study, there were many aspects of task management that could have been explored. One of these that we decided to focus on was the notion that mobile use could be conducive to planning and reflecting on tasks as it is available for use when participants might be idle and thinking about tasks, or alternately, that participants could prefer to plan and reflect using the desktop screen. Both groups reported both planning and reflecting on tasks although no notable preference for mobile or desktop was seen. Participants were not probed in an attempt to assess this

goal, but were provided with opportunities in the final interview and through open ended responses to indicate a difference. None was seen however.

CHAPTER 7

Conclusion

This thesis presented an analysis of ubiquitous task management. The goal of this thesis was to gain a better understanding of the current state of task management tools, where these meet user’s needs and areas where they could improve. This was achieved through five main contributions as outlined below. This chapter will draw conclusions from these contributions and assess these in the context of the original research questions.

UTM Taxonomy

We created a Taxonomy of Ubiquitous Task Management to provide a conceptual framework for de- scribing, explaining and predicting these tools. The structure and justification of the taxonomy were presented in Chapter 4. This taxonomy was informed by the review of literature reported in Chapter 2, an analysis of existing systems which is summarised in Chapter 3 and the results from our field study reported in Chapter 6.

We have used the Taxonomy throughout the thesis to exploit its descriptive, explanatory and predictive qualities to contribute to our understanding task management tools. Four important, yet diverse, task managers were classified according to the taxonomy in Chapter 4. This illustrated the usefulness of the taxonomy to describe different types of task management tools and analysed key strengths and weaknesses of these existing tools. The predictive quality of the taxonomy was utilised through analysis of the “gaps” in classification to highlight Integration and Availability as key considerations for future work.

Understanding of how mobile and desktop tools support task management

Chapters 5 and 6 described the design and execution of our field study which produced rich quantitative and qualitative data. This study explored the effectiveness of a computer-based task management tool available both as a web-based and mobile application using two distinct populations. It gained insight

into the ubiquity of this tool and characterised the nature of mobile versus desktop use of this tool which had previously been unexplored.

Validation of the Taxonomy from results of the field study

Chapter 5 described the two approaches used to analyse the qualitative data from the field study. The results from the Grounded Analysis indicated themes of effectiveness, barriers to use, learnability, us- ability and task management practice. The results of the deductive coding to our taxonomy provided additional understanding of our data through introducing practical areas of focus - Task Capture, Plan- ning and Reflection, Organisation and Retrieval, Coordination, Integration and Availability - with which to analyse this data.

Identification of key challenges for computer-based support for task management

Chapter 6 reported on the results of the field study. A strong indication of the importance of mobility for the effective use of computer-based task management tools was seen across both participants. Integration was also identified as a central barrier to both groups of participants use of the tool. Participants who used the tool when mobile found it an effective ways to manage their tasks. Improving the ubiquity and integration of these tool across multiple devices and when mobile is a key focus area for future work.

Bibliography

37signals. basecamp [online], 2009. URL http://www.basecamphq.com/. Accessed 20 March 2009.

D. Allen. Getting things done: The art of stress-free productivity. Penguin Books, 2001.

ATPM. Task management master list, june 2009 [online], 2009. URL http://www.atpm.com/ 15.06/next-actions.shtml. Accessed 11 July 2009.

Jakob Bardram, Jonathan Bunde-Pedersen, and Mads Soegaard. Support for activity-based computing in a personal computing operating system. In CHI ’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pages 211–220, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. ISBN 1-59593-372-7.

D. Barreau and B.A. Nardi. Finding and reminding: file organization from the desktop. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(3):39–43, 1995.

V. Bellotti, N. Ducheneaut, M. Howard, I. Smith, and R.E. Grinter. Quality versus quantity: E-mail- centric task management and its relation with overload. Human-Computer Interaction, 20(1):89–138, 2005.

Victoria Bellotti, Brinda Dalal, Nathaniel Good, Peter Flynn, Daniel G. Bobrow, and Nicolas Duche- neaut. What a to-do: studies of task management towards the design of a personal task list manager. In CHI ’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 735–742, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-702-8.

Victoria Bellotti, Nicolas Ducheneaut, Mark Howard, and Ian Smith. Taking email to task: the design and evaluation of a task management centered email tool. In CHI ’03: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 345–352, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-630-7.

Victoria Bellotti and Ian Smith. Informing the design of an information management system with it- erative fieldwork. In DIS ’00: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems, pages 227–237, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-219-0.

Brian Benzinger. 25 to do lists to stay productive [online], 2006. URL http://www. solutionwatch.com/450/25-to-do-lists-to-stay-productive/. Accessed 9

March 2009.

H. Bernard and G. Ryan. Text analysis: Qualitative and quantitative methods. 1998.

Michael Bernstein, Max Van Kleek, David Karger, and M. C. Schraefel. Information scraps: How and why information eludes our personal information management tools. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 26(4): 1–46, 2008. ISSN 1046-8188.

H. Beyer and K. Holtzblatt. Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishing, 1998.

A. E. Blandford and T. R. G. Green. Group and individual time management tools: What you get is not what you need. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 5(4):213–230, 2001. ISSN 1617-4909.

Chip Brantley. To do: Make to-do list [online], 2009. URL http://www.slate.com/id/ 2221758/pagenum/all/. Accessed 20 March 2009.

K. Charmaz. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications Ltd, 2006.

Karen Church and Barry Smyth. Understanding the intent behind mobile information needs. In IUI ’09: Proceedingsc of the 13th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 247–256, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. ISBN 978-1-60558-168-2.

K. Conley and J. Carpenter. Towel: Towards an intelligent to-do list. In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Interaction Challenges for Artificial Assistants, Stanford, CA, March 2007. AAAI. Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Susan Wilhite. A diary study of task switching and interruptions.

In CHI ’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 175–182, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-702-8.

Anton N. Dragunov, Thomas G. Dietterich, Kevin Johnsrude, Matthew McLaughlin, Lida Li, and Jonathan L. Herlocker. Tasktracer: a desktop environment to support multi-tasking knowledge work- ers. In IUI ’05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 75–82, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-894-6.

N. Ducheneaut and V. Bellotti. E-mail as habitat: an exploration of embedded personal information management. interactions, 8(5):30–38, 2001.

Edgewall. Trac [online], 2009. URL http://trac.edgewall.org/. Accessed 4 March 2009. David Elsweiler and Ian Ruthven. Towards task-based personal information management evaluations.

In SIGIR ’07: Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 23–30, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. ISBN 978-1-59593-597-7.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 105 R.L. Flood and E.R. Carson. Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of

systems science. Plenum Pub Corp, 1993.

W. Geyer, MJ Muller, MT Moore, E. Wilcox, LT Cheng, B. Brownholtz, C. Hill, and DR Millen. Activity Explorer: Activity-centric collaboration from research to product. IBM Systems Journal, 45 (4):713–738, 2006.

Werner Geyer, Beth Brownholtz, Michael Muller, Casey Dugan, Eric Wilcox, and David R. Millen. Malibu personal productivity assistant. In CHI ’07: CHI ’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 2375–2380, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. ISBN 978-1-59593-642-4. Y. Gil and V. Ratnakar. Automating To-Do Lists for Users: Interpretation of To-Dos for Selecting and Tasking Agents. In Proc. of the Twenty-Third Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-08), Chicago, IL, 2008a.

Yolanda Gil and Varun Ratnakar. Towards intelligent assistance for to-do lists. In IUI ’08: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 329–332, New York, NY, USA, 2008b. ACM. ISBN 978-1-59593-987-6.

Victor M. González and Gloria Mark. "constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres. In CHI ’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 113–120, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-702-8.

Victor M. González and Gloria Mark. Managing currents of work: multi-tasking among multiple collab- orations. In ECSCW’05: Proceedings of the ninth conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pages 143–162, New York, NY, USA, 2005. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. ISBN 978-1402040221.

Google. Google gears [online], 2008. URL http://gears.google.com/. Accessed 20 March 2009.

Google. Google tasks [online], 2009. URL http://mail.google.com/mail/help/tasks/. Accessed 11 March 2009.

J. Gwizdka. TaskView: design and evaluation of a task-based email interface. In Proceedings of the 2002 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research. IBM Press, 2002. James Hollan, Edwin Hutchins, and David Kirsh. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for

human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 7(2):174–196, 2000. ISSN 1073-0516.

Elaine M. Huang and Elizabeth D. Mynatt. Semi-public displays for small, co-located groups. In CHI ’03: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 49–56,

New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-630-7.

ITU. Measuring the information society-the ITC Development Index. 2008.

V. Kaptelinin. UMEA: translating interaction histories into project contexts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 353–360. ACM New York, NY,

In document UN ESTUDIO DE CASO EN EL ESPACIO ACADÉMICO AULA EXPERIMENTAL DEL PCLB DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DISTRITAL FRANCISCO JOSÉ DE CALDAS (página 165-171)