The document discusses the concept of vigilance in human-computer interaction and presents a study investigating whether mobile device users exhibit more vigilant behavior than stationary "situated" users. The study involved interviews and a two-week journaling study comparing 8 mobile users to 8 situated users. Preliminary results found that a higher percentage of mobile users' device usage sessions were considered vigilant compared to situated users. However, the study had limitations such as a small sample size and reliance on self-reporting. Further research is needed to validate whether everyday vigilance is a common user behavior that designers should account for.

1. Are Mobile Users More Vigilant? • Giles Phillips • HCI International 2014 - Crete, Greece • 1/19
M. Giles Phillips
Founder + Principal Investigator | Subforum
@subforum
Mobile Users are More Vigilant Than
Situated Users
HCI International 2014 - Heraklion, Crete
June 25th, 2014

2. Vigilance in HCI - Prior Work
Vigilance (n.) The action or state of keeping careful watch for potential danger or difficulties.
Classically associated with high stakes, sustained
usage tasks by trained operators
Started in WW2 - observing Radar Operators
Mackworth Clock - A simple, repeatable test for
user’s ability to detect signals
Vigilance Decrement - attentional decline impacts
user performance, particularly after the first 30min
THE MACKWORTH CLOCK WW2 RADAR OPERATOR
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 2/19

3. Applied contexts:
• Radar Monitoring
• Air Traffic Control
• Security/Systems IT
Usage Session
Target Signals
Vigilant attention span
Scenario assumptions:
• Trained Operators
• Situated Usage
• Sustained Usage
Vigilance Concept Model:
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 3/19
Vigilance in HCI - Prior Work (cont'd)

4. Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 4/19
What About Everyday Mobile Users?

5. Impression Management
Socialization involves
instinctual feedback loops:
do » observe » adapt
Identify Performance
Social Processes Made Exogenous
Online profile informs
self-identity and must
be monitored{ }
VigilanceVigilance
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 5/19
Everyday Vigilance: Communication

6. 321 4 5
Vigilance is instinctual, training not required
Sustained attention, not sustained usage
Vigilance can manifest as bursts of use
along a watchfulness continuum
Target Signals
Usage Sessions (n)
Vigilant attention span
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 6/19
Vigilance Over Intermittent Sessions of Use

7. Establish and
evaluate criteria
for determining if
a specific session
of use is vigilant
Compare Situated
and Mobile usage
to see if Mobile
users tend to be
more vigilant
Vigilant or not?
Are Mobile Users More Vigilant?
Vigilant or not?
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 7/19
Study : Goals

8. High Task Importance Exogenous or Endogenous Cue Dire Consequences
Low Medium High
As Perceived by User
Criticality of Task
Assumed Contexts:
• Self-Preservation
• Work / Family / Friends
• Communication
Events that invoke the user’s
engagement with device:
• Alert
• Notification
• Compulsion
(Could be habituated)
As Projected by User
For Failing to complete task
Consequences:
• Harm to Self or Others
• Miscommunication
• Loss
!
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 8/19
Measuring Vigilance

9. Study Phases
1. User Phone Interview
2. Self-reporting Journal Study
Analysis
Qualitative: trends, patterns, relationship to device
Quantitative: Longitudinal; per-session; per-user
Compare Sessions of use for Situated & Mobile users
• 8 participants in each cohort, 16 total
• Recruiting via craigslist - $50 gift card upon completion
• 14 journal entries per user - 1x entry per day (2wk min) - 224 total
• 1 entry = 1 session of use (most recent or most notable for day)
Cohort
Mobile
Situated
1
0
02
0
45-54
6
35-44
5
18-24Female 55-64
4
1
Male
3
25-34
4
1
2
3
Apply Vigilance
Criteria to
analyze each
session of use
Gender / Age Distribution by Cohort
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 9/19
Study : Methodology

10. High Frequency, Intermittent Usage
“Phantom Signals”: checking for notifications
Opening the device with no clear goals
Habituated Monitoring Chains
“It is the worst. I feel
like I am not connected to
the world. You feel lost.”
“I was kind of scared”
High Separation Anxiety
Retrieving a lost, broken, or forgotten
device takes precedence over other
considerations
Takes effort to avoid
checking the device:
“it’s not difficult, but I
have to think about it”
Service Suppression
Disabling Services
Avoiding Touchpoints
Desensitization
1
2
34
5
Deactivating account in
a situational fashion,
i.e. during exam week,
“because [Facebook is]
counterproductive.”
X
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 10/19
Qualitative Analysis - Mobile Users

11. Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 11/19
Daily Journal Analysis - Example Entry Form

12. 78%
44%
100%
Correlation of
vigilance and
watchfulness
83%
15
Vigilant Sessions on
days where users felt
need to be watchful
5
Vigilant Sessions on
days where users
noted watchfulness
6
1525 (78%)
14 (44%)
WATCHFUL
SESSIONS
48 (43.8%)
16 (14.3%)
VIGILANT
SESSIONS
Situated
Mobile
COHORT
CORRELATION TO VIGILANCE
MOBILE
SITUATED
43.8%
14.3%
MOBILE
SITUATED
Percentage of
Sessions that
were Vigilant
Percentage of Days
Users Felt Need to
be Watchful
Pilot Study - Early Results
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 12/19
Daily Journal Analysis - Findings

13. Pilot Study - results need validation
Small sample size (2x8)
- 16 total participants
- Not statistically reliable
- Limited demographic data
Relied on Self-Reporting
- Subjectivity & Bias
- Errors
Informal Vigilance Criteria
- Need to be formalized
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 13/19
Study Limitations

14. 1 2Everyday Vigilance Might be Real If So, Be Less Engaging
Open
Device
Assess
Status
Take
Action
Close
Device
We may be neglecting vigilance as a common user
behavior for our products/services or ecosystem.
Vigilance is instinctual, it will happen as soon as the
user cares enough. It likely affects returning users who
are invested in the service.
Vigilance creates distraction and based on prior work, it
probably consumes attentional resources in unique
ways.
It’s different from boredom activities, planned work, or
directed inquiry/sharing.
In designing for a vigilant user, consider
specific design principles for
disengagement:
Shorten the usage session & eliminate
distractors
Minimize alerts
Minimize use of communication channels
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 14/19
Key Takeaways

15. Giles Phillips • Are Mobile Users More Vigilant? • HCI International 2014 Wed Jun 25 2014 • 15/19
THANK YOU!
@gilesphillips
giles@subforum.org

16. 43.8%
14.3%
96.8%
Correlation of
vigilance and dire
consequences
90.9%
30
Vigilant Sessions
associated with dire
consequences
10
Vigilant Sessions on
days where users
noted consequences
11
3148
(43.8%)
16
(14.3%)
VIGILANT
SESSIONS
112
112
TOTAL
SESSIONS
Situated
Mobile
COHORT
USER’S PERCEPTION OF DIRE CONSEQUENCES
Percentage of Sessions that were Vigilant
Standard Deviations
2.6
1.5
MOBILE
SITUATED
Vigilant Sessions Per User
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 16/19
xQuantitative Analysis

17. 78%
44%
100%
Correlation of
vigilance and
watchfulness
83%
15
Vigilant Sessions on
days where users felt
need to be watchful
5
Vigilant Sessions on
days where users
noted watchfulness
6
1525
(78%)
14
(44%)
WATCHFUL
SESSIONS
32
32
TOTAL
SESSIONS
Situated
Mobile
COHORT
CORRELATION TO VIGILANCE
Percentage of Days Users Felt Need to be Watchful
MOBILE
SITUATED
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 17/19
Quantitative Analysis 3

18. Core Vigilance Criteria
Task Description & Importance
Task invokation
Consequence Details
Perceived problems if the task was not
completed?
SET 1
Days 1-5 (80 entries)
Topic Areas
Questions were organized into topic
areas, all sets included the core
vigilance criteria:
Session Details
Length of Session
Task switching
Watchfulness
Did user feel a need to be watchful this
day?
SET 2
Days 6-10 (80 entries)
SET 3
Days 11-14 (64 entries)
Question Sets
Over the course of the study, questions were rotated 3 times:
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 18/19
Study : Journal Details

19. SESSION
1 2 3Vigilance First Disengagement Habituation
Open
Device
Assess
Status
Take
Action
Close
Device
S7 S8 S9 S10 S11
S13 S14 S15 S16 S17
S19 S20 S21 S22 S23
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
S12
S18
S24
S6
Should Session 20 stand out?
Shortened Paths to Action
Only show what’s essential
Eliminate Distractors
Minimize Alerts / Salience
Shorten Session of Use
Push user back into Real World
Frequent, Repeated Tasks
Standard, Non-Novel IxD
Use alert variance to combat
If Vigilance is a common behavior, we must question classic goals: engagement, focus, immersion
Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users • Giles Phillips • @gilesphillips HCI International 2014 • Crete, Greece • 19/19
How Do We Support Vigilance? Proposed Design Principles: