Decision-theory model and system · 1999
Attention-Sensitive Alerting
Horvitz E, Jacobs A, Hovel D
What it found
Treats each alert as a trade: the value of telling someone now against the cost of interrupting them, and the cost of waiting. Applied to email, a system estimated how critical each message was and changed how and when it alerted the person.
Where the evidence stops
A model and a system from 1999, not an outcome trial.
How it shapes Pursue
Pursue
The frame behind Pursue's first question: is this worth the interruption it costs?
A design input, not evidence that Pursue works.
Cited in
- 01When is the right moment for a reminder or a nudge?When the person is able to take it in, which changes from moment to moment. In a trial with 1,255 users of a workplace well-being app (Bidargaddi et al., 2018), the same message made people about 4% more likely to use the app in the next day, and about 12% more likely at 12:30 on weekends.Timing and receptivity
- 02When is it better for an AI assistant to say nothing?Whenever speaking would cost more attention than it gives back: when the person can't take it in, the evidence is thin, or nothing needs to change. The 2018 framework for just-in-time support (Nahum-Shani et al.) counts giving nothing as a designed option, and declining uncertain cases makes a system's other answers more reliable (Geifman and El-Yaniv, 2017).Timing and receptivity