Evaluating TweetBubble with Ideation Metrics of Exploratory Browsing

We extend the Twitter interface to stimulate exploratory browsing of social media and develop a creative cognition method to establish its efficacy. Exploratory browsing is a creative process in which users seek and traverse diverse and novel information as they investigate a conceptual space. The TweetBubble browser extension extends Twitter to enable expansion of social media associations@usernames and #hashtags-in-context, without overwriting initial content. We build on a prior metadata type system, developing new presentation semantics, which enable an integrated look and feel consistent with Twitter. We show how exploratory browsing constitutes a mini-c creative process. We use prior ideation metrics as a basis for new ideation metrics of exploratory browsing. We conducted a mixed methods crowdsourced study, with data from 54 participants, amidst the 2014 Academy Awards. Quantitative and qualitative findings validate the technique of in-context exploratory browsing interfaces for social media. Their consistency supports the validity of ideation metrics of exploratory browsing as an evaluation methodology for interactive systems designed to promote creative engagement.

[1]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications , 1996 .

[2]  J. Kaufman,et al.  Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity , 2009 .

[3]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[4]  Ed H. Chi,et al.  Want to be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Network , 2010, 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing.

[5]  E. Brink,et al.  Constructing grounded theory : A practical guide through qualitative analysis , 2006 .

[6]  Andruid Kerne,et al.  Metadata type system: integrate presentation, data models and extraction to enable exploratory browsing interfaces , 2014, EICS.

[7]  David Salesin,et al.  Experiences with Content Extraction from the Web , 2008 .

[8]  Kazjon Grace,et al.  Towards Computational Co-Creation in Modding Communities , 2014, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment.

[9]  Ed H. Chi,et al.  Using information scent to model user information needs and actions and the Web , 2001, CHI.

[10]  C. DeYoung.  Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy , 2010, TCHI.

[12]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Who says what to whom on twitter , 2011, WWW.

[13]  Allison Druin,et al.  Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families , 2003, CHI '03.

[14]  Kristin A. Cook,et al.  Illuminating the Path: The Research and Development Agenda for Visual Analytics , 2005 .

[15]  D. Simonton.  Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention : Is the Creative Process Darwinian ? , 2022 .

[16]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Information Seeking in Electronic Environments , 1995 .

[17]  Leysia Palen,et al.  (How) will the revolution be retweeted?: information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising , 2012, CSCW.

[18]  David A. Shamma,et al.  Tweet the debates: understanding community annotation of uncollected sources , 2009, WSM@MM.

[19]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk , 2008, CHI.

[20]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Toward Collaborative Ideation at Scale: Leveraging Ideas from Others to Generate More Creative and Diverse Ideas , 2015, CSCW.

[21]  David Salesin,et al.  Summarizing personal web browsing sessions , 2006, UIST.

[22]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[23]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  Fluid links for informed and incremental link transitions , 1998, HYPERTEXT '98.

[24]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter , 2009 .

[25]  M. Boden.  The creative mind : myths & mechanisms , 1991 .

[26]  Andrew M. Webb,et al.  Using Metrics of Curation to Evaluate Information-Based Ideation , 2014, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[27]  Mor Naaman,et al.  HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read , 2006, HYPERTEXT '06.

[28]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  "It's simply integral to what I do": enquiries into how the web is weaved into everyday life , 2012, WWW.

[29]  Nicholas W. Kohn,et al.  Collaborative fixation: effects of others' ideas on brainstorming , 2011 .

[30]  Gerard Salton,et al.  Term-Weighting Approaches in Automatic Text Retrieval , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[31]  Rob Miller,et al.  Automation and customization of rendered web pages , 2005, UIST.

[32]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query-Response Paradigm , 2009, Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query-Response Paradigm.

[33]  Frank M. Shipman,et al.  Experiences surveying the crowd: reflections on methods, participation, and reliability , 2013, WebSci.

[34]  John Baer,et al.  Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity , 2005 .

[35]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for "mini-c" creativity. , 2007 .

[36]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter , 2009, 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[37]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  From Keyword Search to Exploration: Designing Future Search Interfaces for the Web , 2010, Found. Trends Web Sci..

[38]  Andruid Kerne,et al.  Everyday ideation: all of my ideas are on pinterest , 2014, CHI.

[39]  E. Torrance.  The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. , 1988 .

[40]  S. Mednick.  The associative basis of the creative process. , 1962, Psychological review.