skip to main content
10.1145/2207676.2207711acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Distributed sensemaking: improving sensemaking by leveraging the efforts of previous users

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

We examine the possibility of distributed sensemaking: improving a user's sensemaking by leveraging previous users' work without those users directly collaborating or even knowing one another. We asked users to engage in sensemaking by organizing and annotating web search results into "knowledge maps," either with or without previous users' maps to work from. We also recorded gaze patterns as users examined others' knowledge maps. Our findings show the conditions under which distributed sensemaking can improve sensemaking quality; that a user's sensemaking process is readily apparent to a subsequent user via a knowledge map; and that the organization of content was more useful to subsequent users than the content itself, especially when those users had differing goals. We discuss the role distributed sensemaking can play in schema induction by helping users make a mental model of an information space and make recommendations for new tool and system development.

References

  1. Amershi, S., & Morris, M. R. CoSearch: A system for co-located collaborative Web search. In Proc. CHI, 2008, 1647--1656. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Baldonado, M. Q. W., & Winograd, T. SenseMaker: An information-exploration interface supporting the contextual evolution of a user's interests. Proc. CHI, 1997, 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Billman, D., & Bier, E. Medical sensemaking with entity workspace. In Proc. CHI, 2007, 229--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., and Glaser, R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science 5, 2 (1981), 121--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. J. of Reading, 27(1), 44--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, B. M., & Chi, E. H. Towards a model of understanding social search. Proc. CSCW, 2008, 485--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Erickson, T., Smith, D., Kellogg, W., Laff, M., Richards, J., & Bradner, E. (1999). Social translucent systems: social proxies, persistent conversation, and the design of "babble". In Proc. CHI 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Gentner, D. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science 7, 2 (1983), 155--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Giles, G. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438 (2005), 900--901.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Golder, S. & Huberman, B. (2006). Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging Systems. Journal of Information Science. 32(2). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gotz, D. The ScratchPad: Sensemaking support for the web. In Proc. WWW, 2007, 1329--1330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hu, N., Pavlou, P., & Zhang, J. (2006). Can Online Reviews Reveal a Product's True Quality? Empirical Findings and Analytical Modeling of Online Word-ofMouth Communication. In Proc. EC, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hummel, J. E. and Holyoak, K. J. A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review 110, 2 (2003), 220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Keel, P. E. EWall: A visual analytics environment for collaborative sense-making. Information Visualization, 6 (2007), 48--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kellar, M., Watters, C., & Shepherd, M. (2007). A Field Study Characterizing Web-Based Information-Seeking Tasks. J. of American Society for Information Science, 58(7), 999--1018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kittur, A., Chi, E., & Suh, B. (2008). Can You Even Trust a Wiki? Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia. In Proc. CSCW 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Little, G., Lydia, B., Chilton, M., & Miller, R. (2010). Exploring Iterative and Parallel Human Computation Processes. In Proc. HCOMP, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Morris, M. R. A survey of collaborative Web search practices, In Proc. CHI 2008, 1657--1660. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Morris, M. R., & Horvitz, E. SearchTogether: An interface for collaborative Web search. In Proc. UIST 2008, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Nielsen, J., Clemmensen, T., & Yssing, C. (2002). Getting access to what goes on in people's head: reflections on the think-aloud technique. In Proc. CHI 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Paul, S. A., & Morris, M. R. CoSense: Enhancing sensemaking for collaborative web search. In Proc. CHI, 2009, 1771--1780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Paul, S. A., & Reddy, M. (2010). Understanding Together: Sensemaking in Collaborative Information Seeking. In Proc. CSCW 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Pirolli, P. Rational analyses of information foraging on the web. Cognitive Science, 29 (2005), 343--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Pirolli, P., Wollny, E., & Suh, B. (2009). So you know you're getting the best possible information: A tool that increases Wikipedia credibility. In Proc. CHI 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Qu, Y. (2003). A sensemaking-supporting information gathering system. In CHI EA 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P., Card, S. K. The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proc. CHI, 1993, 269--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Shneiderman, B. (2000). Designing trust into online experiences. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 57--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Suthers, D. D. Collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. In Proc. HICSS-38, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Umapathy, K. Requirements to support collaborative sensemaking. In CSCW CIS Workshop, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Whitaker, S. Making sense of sensemaking, in HCI remixed: Reflections on the works that have influenced the HCI community, MIT Press, Boston, MA, USA, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Distributed sensemaking: improving sensemaking by leveraging the efforts of previous users

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2012
      3276 pages
      ISBN:9781450310154
      DOI:10.1145/2207676

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 May 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader