Attention cues predict immediate interruptibility better than online status
Aliases: interruption timing · availability awareness · interruption cost
What it is
Interruptibility awareness estimates whether a person can accept an interruption now and at what cost. Online status indicates connection or recent activity. Attention cues such as rapid editing, presenting, shared-object focus, and task transitions are closer to current work and can better inform timing, but they are not permission.
Why it happens
Interruption cost depends on cognitive engagement, task boundaries, and resumption difficulty. Connection status barely distinguishes these, while input rhythm, meeting role, focus changes, and pauses act as proxies. A proxy remains probabilistic and can reverse meaning across tasks. Turning prediction into automatic blocking or forced delivery transfers classification errors to the user.
Studying it
Experience sampling can ask about interruptibility at message time and compare online, input, calendar, application-switching, and task-stage features. Outcomes include reported suitability, response delay, resumption time, and interruption errors. Repeated observations within people are needed to separate individual differences. Prompts themselves interrupt and missing responses are nonrandom.
Where it stops holding
Better prediction is not sufficient certainty or consent to disclose cues. On-call and emergency work may require interruption despite high cost. Quiet reading can look idle while demanding concentration. Status should help a sender choose timing, not replace recipient rules and decisions.
Applying it
- Express cues as uncertain, such as “possibly focused,” rather than claiming a mental state.
- Support delayed and quiet delivery plus recipient-defined exceptions.
- Do not escalate notification intensity merely because a model predicts availability.
- Validate with resumption cost and recipient appraisal, not fast reply alone.
Related
- Same group: V2.07.1 Gaze and scroll indicate attended regions · V2.07.3 Gaze sharing requires explicit opt-in · V2.07.4 Inferred attention is uncertain · V2.07.5 Value rises with work coupling
- Adjacent: V2.08 Availability and willingness to be interrupted · V4.03 Notification and subscription granularity
- Search terms:
interruptibility·attention awareness·interruption cost
Cards in the same group
- V2.07.1Gaze and scroll position indicate where another person is attending
- V2.07.3Gaze sharing requires explicit opt-in; default collection is surveillance
- V2.07.4Inferred attention is too uncertain to serve as a decision criterion
- V2.07.5The value of attention cues rises with the tightness of collaboration