The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How do people organize their desks?: Implications for the design of office information systems
Open accessAbstract
This paper describes a series of interviews focusing on the way professional and clerical office workers organize the information in their desks and offices.A number of implications for designing "natural" and convenient computer-based information systems are discussed.Two principal claims are made: (1) A very important function of desk organization is to remind the user of things to do, not just to help the user find desired information.Failing to support this function may seriously impair the usefulness of electronic office systems, and explicitly facilitating it may provide an important advantage for automated office systems over their nonautomated predecessors.(2) The cognitive difficulty of categorizing information is an important factor in explaining how people organize their desks.Computer-based systems may help with this difficulty by (a) doing as much automatic classification as possible (e.g., based on access dates}, and (b) including untitled "piles" of information arranged by physical location as well as explicitly titled and logically arranged "files."Several other implications for the design of electronic office systems are discussed, and some differences in how people organize their desks are described.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A diary study of task switching and interruptions
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985715 · Cited by 830
Sensecape: Enabling Multilevel Exploration and Sensemaking with Large Language Models
Suh, S., Min, B., Palani, S., & Xia, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606756 · Cited by 151
Constructing CSCW: The First Quarter Century
Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (2013) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-013-9193-7 · Cited by 129
Spatial hypertext and the practice of information triage
Marshall, C. C., & Shipman, F. M. (1997) · Proceedings of the eighth ACM conference on Hypertext - HYPERTEXT '97 · doi:10.1145/267437.267451 · Cited by 110
Scalable Fabric: flexible task management
Robertson, G., Horvitz, E., Czerwinski, M., Baudisch, P., Hutchings, D. R., Meyers, B., Robbins, D., & Smith, G. (2004) · Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces · doi:10.1145/989863.989874 · Cited by 89
Designing for interaction in research environments: A case study
Lansdale, M., Parkin, J., Austin, S., & Baguley, T. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.05.006 · Cited by 49
The Importance of Models in Making Complex Systems Comprehensible
Fischer, G. (1991) · Human Factors in Information Technology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-88602-6.50005-0 · Cited by 43
Finder highlights: field evaluation and design of an augmented file browser
Fitchett, S., Cockburn, A., & Gutwin, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557014 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Malone, T. W.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Information Systems
- Published
- 1983-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-112
- ISSN
- 1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2868
- OpenAlex
- W2156492599
- Cited by
- 799
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 79.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.