skip to main content
10.1145/3292500.3330732acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Real-World Product Deployment of Adaptive Push Notification Scheduling on Smartphones

Published:25 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The limited attentional resource of users is a bottleneck to delivery of push notifications in today's mobile and ubiquitous computing environments. Adaptive mobile notification scheduling, which detects opportune timings based on mobile sensing and machine learning, has been proposed as a way of alleviating this problem. However, it is still not clear if such adaptive notifications are effective in a large-scale product deployment with real-world situations and configurations, such as users' context changes, personalized content in notifications, and sudden external factors that users commonly experience (such as breaking news). In this paper, we construct a new interruptibility estimation and adaptive notification scheduling with redesigned technical components. From the deploy study of the system to the real product stack of Yahoo! JAPAN Android application and evaluation with 382,518 users for 28 days, we confirmed several significant results, including the maximum 60.7% increase in the users' click rate, 10 times more gain compared to the previous system, significantly better gain in the personalized notification content, and unexpectedly better performance in a situation with exceptional breaking news notifications. With these results, the proposed system has officially been deployed and enabled to all the users of Yahoo! JAPAN product environment where more than 10 million Android app users are enjoying its benefit.

References

  1. Utku Acer, Afra Mashhadi, Claudio Forlivesi, and Fahim Kawsar. 2015. Energy Efficient Scheduling for Mobile Push Notifications. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services on 12th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services (MOBIQUITOUS'15). 100--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Piotr D. Adamczyk and Brian P. Bailey. 2004. If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '04). 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brian P. Bailey and Joseph A. Konstan. 2006. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 22, 4 (2006), 685 -- 708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. James "Bo" Begole, Nicholas E. Matsakis, and John C. Tang. 2004. Lilsys: Sensing Unavailability. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '04). 511--514. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mary Czerwinski, Edward Cutrell, and Eric Horvitz. 2000. Instant messaging: Effects of relevance and timing. In People and computers XIV: Proceedings of HCI, Vol. 2. British Computer Society, 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Joel E. Fischer, Chris Greenhalgh, and Steve Benford. 2011. Investigating Episodes of Mobile Phone Activity As Indicators of Opportune Moments to Deliver Notifications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '11). 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Garlan, D.P. Siewiorek, A. Smailagic, and P. Steenkiste. 2002. Project Aura: toward distraction-free pervasive computing. Pervasive Computing, IEEE , Vol. 1, 2 (april-june 2002), 22 --31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Google Inc. {n. d.}. Making Your App Location-Aware - Android Developers . https://developer.android.com/intl/ja/training/location/index.html .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sandy Gould, Duncan Brumby, Anna Cox, Victor González, Dario Salvucci, and Niels Taatgen. 2012. Multitasking and interruptions: a SIG on bridging the gap between research on the micro and macro worlds. In CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1189--1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Joyce Ho and Stephen S. Intille. 2005. Using Context-aware Computing to Reduce the Perceived Burden of Interruptions from Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '05). 909--918. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Eric Horvitz and Johnson Apacible. 2003. Learning and Reasoning About Interruption. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI '03). 20--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Eric Horvitz, Paul Koch, and Johnson Apacible. 2004. BusyBody: Creating and Fielding Personalized Models of the Cost of Interruption. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '04). 507--510. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Scott Hudson, James Fogarty, Christopher Atkeson, Daniel Avrahami, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Johnny Lee, and Jie Yang. 2003. Predicting Human Interruptibility with Sensors: A Wizard of Oz Feasibility Study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03). 257--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2006. Leveraging Characteristics of Task Structure to Predict the Cost of Interruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06). 741--750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2005. Investigating the Effectiveness of Mental Workload As a Predictor of Opportune Moments for Interruption. In CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '05). 1489--1492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2010. Oasis: A Framework for Linking Notification Delivery to the Perceptual Structure of Goal-directed Tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , Vol. 17, 4, Article 15 (Dec. 2010), bibinfonumpages28 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Eric Horvitz. 2010. Notifications and Awareness: A Field Study of Alert Usage and Preferences. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '10). 27--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Daniel Kahneman. 1973. Attention and effort .Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. G. Kreifeldt and M. E. McCarthy. 1981. Interruption as a test of the user-computer interface. In JPL Proceeding of the 17 th Annual Conference on Manual Control. 655--667.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Abhinav Mehrotra, Mirco Musolesi, Robert Hendley, and Veljko Pejovic. 2015. Designing Content-driven Intelligent Notification Mechanisms for Mobile Applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). 813--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. James T Milord and Raymond P Perry. 1977. A Methodological Study of Overloadx. The Journal of General Psychology , Vol. 97, 1 (1977), 131--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Darren Newtson and Gretchen Engquist. 1976. The perceptual organization of ongoing behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 12, 5 (1976), 436--450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Tadashi Okoshi, Julian Ramos, Hiroki Nozaki, Jin Nakazawa, Anind K. Dey, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2015a. Attelia: Reducing User's Cognitive Load due to Interruptive Notifications on Smart Phones. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications 2015 (PerCom '15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Tadashi Okoshi, Julian Ramos, Hiroki Nozaki, Jin Nakazawa, Anind K. Dey, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2015b. Reducing Users' Perceived Mental Effort Due to Interruptive Notifications in Multi-device Mobile Environments. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). 475--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Tadashi Okoshi, Kota Tsubouchi, Masaya Taji, Takanori Ichikawa, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2017. Attention and Engagement-Awareness in the Wild : A Large-Scale Study with Adaptive Notifications. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications 2017 (PerCom '17) . 100--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Veljko Pejovic and Mirco Musolesi. 2014. InterruptMe : Designing Intelligent Prompting Mechanisms for Pervasive Applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '14). 395--906. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Martin Pielot, Tilman Dingler, Jose San Pedro, and Nuria Oliver. 2015. When Attention is Not Scarce - Detecting Boredom from Mobile Phone Usage. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). 825--836. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Benjamin Poppinga, Martin Pielot, Niels Henze, Nuria Oliver, Karen Church, and Alireza Sahami Shirazi. 2015. Smarttention, Please! Intelligent Attention Management on Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI '15). 1066--1069. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Richard M Shiffrin and Walter Schneider. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological review , Vol. 84, 2 (1977), 127.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Herbert A Simon. 1971. Designing organizations for an information-rich world. Computers, communication, and the public interest , Vol. 37 (1971), 40--41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Cheri Speier, Joseph S Valacich, and Iris Vessey. 1999. The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences , Vol. 30, 2 (1999), 337--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Robert J. Sternberg and Karin Sternberg. 2012. Cognitive Psychology 6 ed.). Cengage Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. G. H. (Henri) ter Hofte. 2007. Xensible Interruptions from Your Mobile Phone. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '07). 178--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Alvin Toffler. 1990. Future shock .Bantam.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Kota Tsubouchi and Tadashi Okoshi. 2017. People's Interruptibility In-the-wild: Analysis of Breakpoint Detection Model in a Large-scale Study. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (UbiComp '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 922--927. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Alexandra Voit, Benjamin Poppinga, Dominik Weber, Matthias Bo?hmer, Niels Henze, Sven Gehring, Tadashi Okoshi, and Veljko Pejovic. 2016. UbiTtention: Smart & Ambient Notification and Attention Management. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '16). 1520--1523. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Dominik Weber, Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Sven Gehring, Niels Henze, Benjamin Poppinga, Martin Pielot, and Tadashi Okoshi. 2016. Smarttention, Please!: 2Nd Workshop on Intelligent Attention Management on Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI '16). 914--917. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Fred RH Zijlstra, Robert A Roe, Anna B Leonora, and Irene Krediet. 1999. Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 72, 2 (1999), 163--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Real-World Product Deployment of Adaptive Push Notification Scheduling on Smartphones

      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
        KDD '19: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
        July 2019
        3305 pages
        ISBN:9781450362016
        DOI:10.1145/3292500

        Copyright © 2019 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 the author(s) 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: 25 July 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        KDD '19 Paper Acceptance Rate110of1,200submissions,9%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader