{"id":316,"date":"2014-05-03T11:08:11","date_gmt":"2014-05-03T11:08:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pim.famnit.upr.si\/wp\/?p=316"},"modified":"2021-11-17T11:18:10","modified_gmt":"2021-11-17T11:18:10","slug":"pim-paper-grevet-et-al-overload-is-overloaded-email-in-the-age-of-gmail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pim.famnit.upr.si\/wp\/?p=316","title":{"rendered":"PIM paper: Grevet et. al. “Overload is overloaded: email in the age of Gmail”"},"content":{"rendered":"

A CHI 2014 paper by <\/a>C Grevet, D Choi, D Kumar, E Gilber<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Abstract:  <\/p>\n

"The term email overload has two definitions: receiving a large volume of
\n incoming email, and having emails of different status types (to do, to
\nread, etc). Whittaker and Sidner proposed the latter definition in 1996,
\n noticing that email inboxes were far more complex than simply
\ncontaining incoming messages. Sixteen years after Whittaker and Sidner,
\nwe replicate and extend their work with a qualitative analysis of
\nGoogle’s Gmail. We find that email overload, both in terms of volume and
\n of status, is still a problem today. Our contributions are 1) updating
\nthe state of email overload, 2) extending our understanding of overload
\nin the context of Gmail and 3) comparing personal with work email
\naccounts: while work email tends to be status overloaded, personal email
\n is also type overloaded. These comparisons between work and personal
\nemail suggest new avenues for email research."<\/em><\/p>\n

\n