No abstract

In this paper, we present initial findings from a six-month study involving qualitative interviews on the topic of project-related personal information management. Specifically, we report on the emergent theme of information management strategy abandonment -that is, what factors in particular might cause people to give up on their systems for managing documents, calendars, email, and other sorts of project information. In exploring the recurrence of this theme throughout the interview data, five factors emerged as particularly compelling and frequently-cited reasons for system abandonment: (1) visibility, (2) integration, (3) co-adoption, (4) scalability, and (5) return on investment. We describe each of these factors in turn, using examples from the interviews for illustration. These findings, though preliminary in nature, provide a starting point for understanding why systems fail and how future systems might be designed to improve their success rate.Few of us are completely satisfied with the way we manage the information that helps us perform our daily activities. Our email inboxes overflow, the papers pile up on our desks, and our various calendars and to-do lists become neglected or overwhelmingly complicated. But this does not stop us from trying. We look for better ways; practices that make information management easier, so that we can get on with our lives. Along the way, we often leave a trail of abandoned systems behind us, or weave back and forth between new systems and old.The systems we each develop involve a combination of existing information management tools and strategies for their use. Boardman and Sasse (2004) observed that people often maintain several distinct systems depending upon the information form involved. Participants in their study tended to be most organized for electronic documents and other files, for which organization most frequently took the form of folders correlated with particular projects. Folders were less commonly used to organize web bookmarks, and, when used, they more typically reflected a topic area rather than a specific project.Consistent with the idea that individuals organize their information by topic and project is Kwasnik's (1989) observation that expected use or intended purpose is often a primary consideration in the development of an organization system. Documents, then, may be organized for use on a current project whereas web references (when the trouble is taken to save these) may more likely be organized by topic, as part of a reference collection intended for repeated use. Information is also organized according to activity level or frequency of use. For example, Cole (1982) observed that people tend to divide their information broadly into three categories -action information (to be processed in the next few days), project information (relevant to current projects) and archival information.But what about the success of different systems of information management? Bruce, Jones and Dumais (2004) discussed results of a survey in which the same strategie...

No abstract

With its Books project, Google has made an unprecedented effort to aggregate a comprehensive public‐access collection of the world's books. If successful, Google's collection would become the world's largest and most broadly accessible public book collection—indeed, project leaders have frequently spoken of their desire to create a “universal library” (Toobin 2007). Still, the Google “library” would differ from established contexts for the provision of free, public access to reading materials—like public libraries—along several policy‐related dimensions, of which perhaps the most glaring is its treatment of reader privacy. This paper teases out the specific differences in reader privacy protections between the American public library and Google Books, and what those differences might mean for the values and goals that such contexts have historically embodied. Our analysis is structured by Helen Nissenbaum's “contextual integrity decision heuristic” (2009), which focuses on revealing changes in informational norms and transmission principles between prevailing and novel settings and practices. Based on this analysis, we recommend a two‐pronged approach to alleviating the threats to reader privacy posed by Google Books: both data policy modifications within Google itself and inscription of privacy protections for online reading into federal or international law.

The right to be forgotten gained international attention in May 2014, when the European Court of Justice ruled that Google was obligated to recognize European citizens’ data protection rights to address inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive personal information. As of April 14, 2015, Google received 239,337 requests to eliminate 867,930 URLs from search results and has removed 305,095 URLs, a rate of 41.5 percent. The right to be forgotten is intended to legally address digital information that lingers and threatens to shackle individuals to their past by exposing the information to opaque data processing and online judgment. There are a number of challenges to developing these rights – digital information means and touches so many aspects of life across cultures as they grapple with new policies. The controversial ruling and establishment of such a right, potential for a similar movement in the U.S., and future of transborder data flows will be discussed by this esteemed panel.