Comment by kaffekaka

Comment by kaffekaka 19 hours ago

2 replies

I interpret this and the article as saying that those 23 minutes are not spent trying to resume the original task, but on the interruption itself and the other intervening tasks that are worked on before returning to the original task.

If that interpretation is correct, those 23 mins are not wasted in confusion but simply spent on other things.

Do i read it correctly?

didibus 9 hours ago

Yes you read it correctly. It's the time of the "interruption" itself. From when you stopped working on your task to when you resumed working on it.

In that time away from your task you might have answered questions, worked another small task, relaxed, chit chatted, etc.

The time to refocus on the task once resumed wasn't measured, but participants said it was "very detrimental".

> Thus, people’s attention was directed to multiple other topics before resuming work. This was reported by informants as being very detrimental

So we don't exactly know how much time it took participants to get back to a focused state on their task, we just know the time they were away from it.

glenstein 17 hours ago

That's a great question and after rereading the quote I honestly couldn't tell.

After mentioning the time, they do talk about how it also takes time to return to work from an interruption. But on my read it seemed a bit ambiguous whether the time was from the interruption itself or from the combination of the interruption and the time after the interruption before you return to productive work.