skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025631acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

PersaLog: Personalization of News Article Content

Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Content personalization automatically modifying text and multimedia features within articles based on the reader's individual features'is evolving as a new form of journalism. Informed by constraints articulated through a survey of journalists, we have implemented PersaLog, a novel system for creating personalized content (e.g., text and interactive visualizations). Because crafting, and validating, personalized content can be challenging to scale across articles (unlike feed personalization), we offer a simple Domain Specific Language (DSL), and editing environment, to support this task. PersaLog is particularly designed to support the personalization of existing text and visualizations. Our work provides guidelines for personalization as well as a system that allows for both subtle and dramatic personalization-driven content changes. We validate PersaLog using case and lab studies.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn1853-file3.mp4

mp4

10.2 MB

p3188-adar.mp4

mp4

284.6 MB

References

  1. Gregor Aisch, Quoctrung Bui, Amanda Cox, and Kevin Quealy. 2016. Where the Poor Live Longer: How Your Area Compares. The New York Times, April 11, Available: http://nyti.ms/1SryMtT. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gregor Aisch, Eric Buth, Matthew Block, Amanda Cox, and Kevin Quealy. 2015. The Best and Worst Places to Grow Up: How Your Area Compares. The New York Times, May 4, 2015, Available: http://nyti.ms/1KGrkJM. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jon Bentley. 1986. Programming Pearls: Little Languages. Commun. ACM 29, 8 (Aug. 1986), 711--721. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/6424.315691 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Michael Bolin, Matthew Webber, Philip Rha, Tom Wilson, and Robert C. Miller. 2005. Automation and Customization of Rendered Web Pages. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163--172. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1095034.1095062 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Engin Bozdag. 2013. Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology 15, 3 (2013), 209--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Paul De Bra, Evgeny Knutov, David Smits, Natalia Stash, and Vinicius F. C. Ramos. 2013. GALE: a generic open source extensible adaptation engine. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 19, 2 (2013), 182--212. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2013.806961 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Paul De Bra, Natalia Stash, David Smits, Cristóbal Romero, and Sebastián Ventura. 2007. Authoring and Management Tools for Adaptive Educational Hypermedia Systems: The AHA! Case Study. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 285--308. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--3--540--71974--8_11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Peter Brusilovsky and Eva Millán. 2007. User Models for Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Educational Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3--53. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--3--540--72079--9_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Darla Cameron and Denise Lu. 2016. Personal interview, July 12. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gina Masullo Chen, T Makana Chock, Hillary Gozigian, Ryan Rogers, Arushi Sen, Valarie N Schweisberger, Joseph Steinhardt, and Yi Wang. 2011. Personalizing news websites attracts young readers. Newspaper Research J. 32, 4 (2011), 22--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Pascal R Chesnais, Matthew J Mucklo, Jonathan Sheena, and others. 1995. The Fishwrap personalized news system. In 2nd International Workshop Community Networking, 1995. IEEE, New York, NY, 275--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kevyn Collins-Thompson, Paul N. Bennett, Ryen W. White, Sebastian de la Chica, and David Sontag. 2011. Personalizing Web Search Results by Reading Level. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 403--412. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2063576.2063639 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Diana I Cordova and Mark R Lepper. 1996. Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. J. of Educational Psychology 88, 4 (1996), 715.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Allen Cypher, Mira Dontcheva, Tessa Lau, and Jeffrey Nichols. 2010. No Code Required: Giving Users Tools to Transform the Web. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Nada Dabbagh and Anastasia Kitsantas. 2012. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education 15, 1 (2012), 3--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Judy Davis-Dorsey, Steven M Ross, and Gary R Morrison. 1991. The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. J. of Educational Psychology 83, 1 (1991), 61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Chrysanne Di Marco, Peter Bray, H Dominic Covvey, Donald D Cowan, Vic Di Ciccio, Eduard Hovy, Joan Lipa, and Cathy Yang. 2006. Authoring and generation of individualized patient education materials. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2006. American Medical Informatics Association, Bethesda, MD, 195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Paula J Durlach and Alan M Lesgold. 2012. Adaptive technologies for training and education. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Facebook. 2017. Ads Guide. https://www.facebook.com/business/ads-guide/. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Leah Findlater and Joanna McGrenere. 2008. Impact of Screen Size on Performance, Awareness, and User Satisfaction with Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1247--1256. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357249 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jonathan G.K. Foss and Alexandra I. Cristea. 2010. The Next Generation Authoring Adaptive Hypermedia: Using and Evaluating the MOT3.0 and PEAL Tools. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (HT '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83--92. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1810617.1810633 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Susan Dumais, and Eric Horvitz. 2004. Newsjunkie: Providing Personalized Newsfeeds via Analysis of Information Novelty. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 482--490. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/988672.988738 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Mary Czerwinski, Desney S. Tan, and Daniel S. Weld. 2006. Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 201--208. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1133265.1133306 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Katherine Everitt, Desney S. Tan, Mary Czerwinski, and Daniel S. Weld. 2008. Predictability and Accuracy in Adaptive User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1271--1274. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357252 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Arline T Geronimus, John Bound, and Lisa J Neidert. 1996. On the validity of using census geocode characteristics to proxy individual socioeconomic characteristics. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 91, 434 (1996), 529--537.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Stefan Göbel, Sandro Hardy, Viktor Wendel, Florian Mehm, and Ralf Steinmetz. 2010. Serious Games for Health: Personalized Exergames. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1663--1666. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1873951.1874316 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Google. 2017. Google Ads. https://www.google.com/ads/. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. T.R.G. Green and M. Petre. 1996. Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A "Cognitive Dimensions" Framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 7, 2 (1996), 131 -- 174. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jonathan Harper and Maneesh Agrawala. 2014. Deconstructing and Restyling D3 Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 253--262. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647411 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kashmir Hill. 2016. How an internet mapping glitch turned a random Kansas farm into a digital hell. Fusion, April 10, Available: http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitchkansas-farm/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Graeme Hirst, Chrysanne DiMarco, Eduard Hovy, and Kimberley Parsons. 1997. Authoring and Generating Health-Education Documents That Are Tailored to the Needs of the Individual Patient. Springer Vienna, Vienna, 107--118. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--3--7091--2670--7_14Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kristina Höök. 2000. Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting with computers 12, 4 (2000), 409--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. B. Huffaker, M. Fomenkov, and k. claffy. 2011. Geocompare: a comparison of public and commercial geolocation databases - Technical Report . Technical Report. Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Chris J. Hughes, Mike Armstrong, Rhianne Jones, and Michael Crabb. 2015. Responsive Design for Personalised Subtitles. In Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference (W4A '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 4 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2745555.2746650 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Judy Kay. 2000. Stereotypes, Student Models and Scrutability. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS '00). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, UK, 19--30. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=648030.745813 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Yea-Seul Kim, Jessica Hullman, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2016. Generating Personalized Spatial Analogies for Distances and Areas. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 38--48. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858440 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Aleksandra Klašnja-Milićević, Boban Vesin, Mirjana Ivanović, and Zoran Budimac. 2011. E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education 56, 3 (2011), 885--899. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Scott Klein. 2013. How To Edit 52,000 Stories at Once. ProPublica Nerd Blog, Jan. 24, 2013, Available: https://goo.gl/5QipBA. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Evgeny Knutov, Paul De Bra, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2009. AH 12 years later: a comprehensive survey of adaptive hypermedia methods and techniques. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 15, 1 (2009), 5--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Andrew J. Ko, Robin Abraham, Laura Beckwith, Alan Blackwell, Margaret Burnett, Martin Erwig, Chris Scaffidi, Joseph Lawrance, Henry Lieberman, Brad Myers, Mary Beth Rosson, Gregg Rothermel, Mary Shaw, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2011. The State of the Art in End-user Software Engineering. ACM Comput. Surv. 43, 3, Article 21 (April 2011), 44 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1922649.1922658 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Gilly Leshed, Eben M. Haber, Tara Matthews, and Tessa Lau. 2008. CoScripter: Automating & Sharing How-to Knowledge in the Enterprise. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1719--1728. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357323 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Yuping Liu and LJ Shrum. 2002. What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. J. of Advertising 31, 4 (2002), 53--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Catherine McLoughlin and Mark JW Lee. 2010. Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26, 1 (2010), 28--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. MediumEditor Open Source Team. 2016. MediumEditor. https://yabwe.github.io/medium-editor/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Ted Mellnik, Darla Cameron, Denise Lu, Emily Badger, and Kat Downs. 2016. America's great housing divide: Are you a winner or loser? Washington Post, April 28, 2016, Available: http://wapo.st/housing. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Maria Milosavljevic. 1997. Augmenting the User's Knowledge via Comparison. Springer Vienna, Vienna, 119--130. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--3--7091--2670--7_15Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Alejandro Montes García, Paul De Bra, George H.L. Fletcher, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2014. A DSL Based on CSS for Hypertext Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 313--315. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2631775.2631782 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Dan Murray and Kevan Durrell. 2000. Inferring Demographic Attributes of Anonymous Internet Users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 7--20. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3--540--44934--5_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Reinhard Oppermann and R Rasher. 1997. Adaptability and adaptivity in learning systems. Knowledge transfer 2 (1997), 173--179.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Shahida M. Parvez and Glenn D. Blank. 2008. Individualizing Tutoring with Learning Style Based Feedback. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 291--301. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--3--540--69132--7_33Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Paul A Pavlou and David W Stewart. 2000. Measuring the effects and effectiveness of interactive advertising: A research agenda. J. of Interactive Advertising 1, 1 (2000), 61--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Kevin Quealy. 2016. Personal interview, July 1. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz. 2015. The Experts Were Wrong About the Best Places for Better and Cheaper Health Care. The New York Times, December 15, 2016, Available: http://nyti.ms/1IRnP6J. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ehud Reiter, Robert Dale, and Zhiwei Feng. 2000. Building natural language generation systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Mark Christopher Roberts. 2007. Measuring the relationship between journalistic transparency and credibility. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of South Carolina.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Celette Sugg Skinner, Victor J Strecher, and Harm Hospers. 1994. Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? American Journal of Public Health 84, 1 (1994), 43--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Michael Strickland, Archie Tse, Matthew Ericson, and Tom Giratikanon. 2016. ArchieML. http://archieml.org/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Margaret Sullivan. 2015. When News Gets (Too?) Personal. The New York Times, Public Editor's Journal, Dec. 17, http://nyti.ms/1T3H9hs. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. The New York Times. 2015. Innovation. May 24, 2015. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Theophanis Tsandilas and m. c. schraefel. 2005. An Empirical Assessment of Adaptation Techniques. In CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2009--2012. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1057079 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Blase Ur, Melwyn Pak Yong Ho, Stephen Brawner, Jiyun Lee, Sarah Mennicken, Noah Picard, Diane Schulze, and Michael L. Littman. 2016. Trigger-Action Programming in the Wild: An Analysis of 200,000 IFTTT Recipes. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3227--3231. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858556 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Shan Wang. 2016. The Los Angeles Times built its own journalist-friendly story editor, and it's now rolling out to all of Tronc. Nieman Lab, August 10, 2016, Available: goo.gl/c7wFVm. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Jeffrey Wong and Jason I. Hong. 2007. Making Mashups with Marmite: Towards End-user Programming for the Web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1435--1444. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240842 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. PersaLog: Personalization of News Article Content

    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 '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      7138 pages
      ISBN:9781450346559
      DOI:10.1145/3025453

      Copyright © 2017 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: 2 May 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate600of2,400submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader