+ Page 20 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ####### ######## ######## ########### ### ### ## ### ## # ### # Interpersonal Computing and ### ### ## ### ## ### Technology: ### ### ## ### ### An Electronic Journal for ### ######## ### ### the 21st Century ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ## ### ISSN: 1064-4326 ### ### ### ## ### January 1996 ####### ### ######## ### Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 20 - 33 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Department of Education University of Maryland Baltimore County Additional support provided Georgetown University This article is archived as CALDWELL IPCTV4N1 on LISTSERV@LISTSERV.GEORGETOWN.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY-BASED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 1: WHAT (SOME) USERS WANT Barrett S. Caldwell and Jenifer W. Robertson Department of Industrial Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Introduction A growing body of popular and scholarly literature has tried to describe, define, and divine the nature of the "Information Highway" and the services to be provided to consumers of the modern marketplace of data. However, like many new technology systems, the dominant uses of computer-based information technology are largely determined by evolving social and cultural norms, rather than technical or economic prognostications. A great debate has arisen over the nature of community in the "electronic environment". The majority of discussions and projections, however, have focused on a relatively small fraction of knowledgeable users of electronic networks. Achieving the universal popularity of the telephone and television may require a greater recognition of the demands and needs of a broad variety of the population on whom the success of the Information Highway will depend. Surveys of this broad community of potential users suffer from several stumbling blocks. Many members of the public are not fully aware of, and cannot exploit, the information options made possible by novel combinations of cable television, telephone, and computer systems. Even an action like ordering a pizza electronically would require that the "average" person have electronic access to local and wide area networks, as well as hardware and software capabilities such as Mosaic hypertext transfer protocol access (Santa Cruz Operations, Inc., electronic message, August 23, 1994). In order to be effective for customer use, the process should be as simple as picking up a telephone and pressing (at most) seven buttons to dial the number and order the pizza orally. Despite the explosion in personal computer sales in the late 1980s and 1990s, it cannot be assumed that the majority of the population has the technological base or social comfort to fully replace existing forms of community interactions and information + Page 21 + exchange with the computer access requirements and distinct cultural norms of the Internet (Elmer-Dewitt, 1994). Those who are most aware of the potential options for data navigation and read articles in specialized trade magazines devoted to the topic are often least likely to fully recognize the barriers which may prevent a broad diffusion of services to the public. Even those who experts who acknowledge potential limitations to the ideal of universal access and acceptance differ in opinion due to the lack of consensus or data on what the impact of the Information Highway will be on society as a whole ("Seven Thinkers," 1994). Nonetheless, the development of sophisticated (and yet easily accessible) information access systems suggests a new level of public community development similar in form and style to the diffusion of the public library concept in the late 19th Century. Like the neighborhood library, planned data access and navigation technologies could provide information on local news, access to government activities, and serve a renewed "town common" function where members of the community exchange ideas, stories, and gossip. This community based approach to information services takes a very different form from that of the "Information Highway" marketplace of data ("Seven Thinkers," 1994). The local community defined by place and home has a variety of residents with a range of interests and needs. A community of interests (such as an electronic discussion group) are bound by different ties and different considerations for community definition. Effective information technology delivery to a community of place will focus on those services which support the functions and social maintenance of the community. A search for a market-driven "universal service" or "killer application" ignores the multiple groups and needs of an existing and dynamic community of persons with a range of skills and access to technology resources. Learning What Users Want Relatively few discussions of the future of the Information Highway explicitly focus on the perspectives and attitudes of end users--those to whom the information services are directed. The discrepancy between what people are expected to use and what they actually will use has been clearly noted in several articles on failed promises for consumer-based information technology services and workplace information exchange (McCarroll, 1991; Miller, Davis & Elio, 1990; Mokhtarian, 1991; Schaeffermeyer & Sewell, 1988; Wright, 1990). The key to an effective understanding of public attitudes, therefore, includes both a recognition of what services the public is interested in using and an evaluation of the advancements required to make those services broadly accessible. + Page 22 + One such survey was recently undertaken to examine the limits to predictions made regarding a market-driven Information Highway network of commercial information services (Piller, 1994). This survey queried 600 users in the United States on their interest in a variety of information services. The users were presented with a list of services based on their potential commercial viability, as well as those considered "feasible, likely, or interesting" {Charles Piller, personal communication, 29 September 1994} by professionals in the field. (See Table 1 for a list of services included in the Macworld survey.) Of the 26 services presented, only 11 were considered of at least moderate interest by at least 50% of the survey respondents. Eight of these services can be considered primarily community-oriented (voting; searching newspapers and magazines, references, or card catalogs--services provided by a neighborhood library; obtaining information from schools or government; participating in opinion polls and electronic town halls). Only one service--video on demand--was clearly commercial. Both distance learning and obtaining tax or credit data can be seen as a combination of community and commercial activities. --------------------------------------- Place Table 1 About Here --------------------------------------- As an initial examination of user attitudes, this survey provides some significant data and insights. The small and restricted sample (37.5% of the respondents were subscribers to Macworld) strongly indicates a need for replication of the basic methods of the survey in a more focused community framework. In addition, the survey was not able to address differences in interest based on demographic differences such as age, marital or parent status, or educational level. Nonetheless, the Macworld survey emphasizes the need to address user demands and priorities for community-based information services. This emphasis has served as the basis for a number of state and local government, as well as public broadcasting, initiatives to examine alternatives to market-driven information networks. The author's experience in assisting in the development of a "community information partnership" in a Midwestern US state forms the basis of the survey presented in this paper. The information partnership model on which the state's network development is based combines the public library and town hall approaches with a public broadcasting framework. This combination of strategies reflects the makeup of the partnership, which includes members of the state public broadcasting network, local school and university representatives, and a variety of community representatives. The partnership represents both actual community members and service providers, some of whom are not technologically sophisticated users of advanced computer-based information networks. The survey presented in this paper was developed and conducted to help identify development priorities and potential user demands for information services across a range of urban and rural communities within the state. + Page 23 + Method The initial survey design for this project was developed as part of the author's assistance in the development of the state community information partnership effort. A group of 14 members of the partnership advisory and oversight board were asked to generate a list of potential community-based information services to be considered for inclusion in the information partnership network development. Using a nominal group technique, the group generated a list of 22 potential services which could be offered in the community information network (see Table 2 for a list of these services). The list of services focused on information and communications typical of libraries (looking up titles or texts of books and magazines), schools (studying homework with classmates or having meetings with teachers), town halls (contacting local government officials or accessing records), as well as more general community activities (discussion groups, employment listings, and commercial services such as banking, food ordering, and travel planning). --------------------------------------- Place Table 2 About Here --------------------------------------- This list of 22 services (with three additional blanks for respondents to enter their own desired potential information services) was used as the basis of a survey designed, pilot-tested, and distributed by students in the author's Seminar in Technology and Society as part of a class project. The list of services was presented with the instructions that respondents allocate a total of 100 points among the 22 services to reflect the respondent's perceived relative importance of the services. Respondents could allocate between 0 and 100 points to each service, subject to the restriction that the total points allocated must sum to 100. This "ipsative" measurement technique has been used in the author's previous research for determining user priorities for improving classroom design features and information technology medium features (Caldwell, 1993; Caldwell, Uang & Taha, 1995). While the technique is not recommended for construct definition in personality scale construction, an ipsative measurement approach is justified in tasks similar to the current survey's determination of priorities of information services among users (Saville & Willson, 1991). In addition to the list of 22 information services, the survey requested respondents to provide demographic information regarding their age, gender, educational attainment level, marital status, whether they had children, and whether they had a computer at home or at work. Respondents were also requested to rate their own level of computer experience on a 6- point scale (0 - no experience, 5 - expert). Two versions of the survey were distributed, with differing orders of the 22 information services. A comparison of the two versions found no significant differences in priority allocations between the versions. + Page 24 + Results Demographic Responses A total of 80 state residents agreed to respond to the survey. The residents were distributed across four areas of the state, and included both metropolitan and rural residents. The average age of the respondents was 35.4 years, with a range from 9 to 85. The majority of the respondents were married (55, or 68.8%) and had children (47, or 58.8%). Forty-six of the respondents (57.5%) were female. Seventy-three of 80 respondents (92.9%) had a computer at work or school (if their occupation was "student"), while 49 respondents (65.0%) had a computer at home. (One respondent did not report whether they had a computer at work). The respondents represented a variety of occupational types and education levels (see Table 3). A majority of the sample (56 of 78, or 71.8%) did not have formal education beyond the bachelor's degree; fully half of the respondents (39 of 78) did not have a college degree. On the computer experience scale of 0 (no experience) to 5 (expert), respondents reported a mean experience level of 2.66 (one participant did not respond to this question). --------------------------------------- Place Table 3 About Here --------------------------------------- Ipsative allocations of information services Overall point allocations for the 10 highest scoring information services are presented in Table 4. Under the null hypothesis that there was no difference in respondent point allocations across services, we would expect an average point allocation of 100 / 23 = 4.75 points per service (the 22 services presented plus a general "other" category). Only the first nine services presented in Table 4 exceeded this expected value: sending and receiving electronic mail or faxes; transferring money; printing and reading books or magazine articles; filing public documents; looking for a job; looking up consumer product information; checking local event schedules; scheduling travel arrangements; looking up library catalog titles. It should be noted that only the service constitutes a consumer-based merchandise or sales service in the true commercial sense. Money transfer and email delivery can be commercial services (and are often marketed as such), but in these cases, the user purchases the electronic transaction or information exchange itself, rather than a separate product (such as an airplane ticket) via the electronic transaction. Library, government, and community event services are clearly represented as important potential services across the sample of respondents, and are not commonly considered (in the US) as commercial services. + Page 25 + --------------------------------------- Place Table 4 About Here --------------------------------------- Analyses of service ratings between respondent groups indicated significant differences in respondents' information service priorities based on education level, computer expertise, and family status. These differences across the top seven services for each group are presented in Tables 5-7. --------------------------------------- Place Tables 5-7 About Here --------------------------------------- As shown in the tables, changes in demographic groupings result in distinctly different patterns of information service priorities. These patterns were tested using the Friedman and Kendall tests of concordance across groups of judges (Powell, 1982). The range of the Kendall W is from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect agreement across groups. The Friedman T is distributed similarly to the chi-square with degrees of freedom equal to the number of items rated, minus 1. Only the top seven services for each group are ranked in the tables. In each of the three demographic distinctions (education, computer expertise, and family status), there are apparent differences between users' desires to use community information networks to obtain goods via the network, and desires to obtain or exchange information. For the most part, less sophisticated users (children, novices, those with less education) rate services such as ordering food and movies in their top seven priorities. More sophisticated users emphasize services to send, as well as receive, information (such as filing documents, exchanging electronic mail and on-line discussions, and even asking questions of other experts). Discussion Although the CoBITS user survey suggests some very interesting trends and opportunities for new information network development, several caveats are in order. Two significant flaws hamper the overall generalization of the survey results, at least from a traditional psychometric or sociological perspective. While the sample size is adequate in comparison to the MacWorld survey, the sample cannot be considered a strictly random sample. (The survey actually represents a "convenience" survey of contacts known to the students who conducted the survey.) In addition, the generation of the + Page 26 + list of potential information services came from a Delphi process of idea generation. This process precludes the opportunity for users to create or develop a substantial list of novel or innovative services based on experience with information network technologies not yet available. The Delphi method encourages users to project their attitudes towards currently available systems. Since consumer-based "re-invention" of new technologies is a major component of innovation (Rogers, 1986), this study cannot fully address the range of innovations in information services that will result from community implementation of an information services system. Therefore, the value of this study does not lie in its ability to authoritatively declare what the population wants or will be able to do with a novel form of community interaction and information exchange. The goal of the survey was do identify what some segments of the population may desire from a community-based (rather than a market-based or provider- based) information services system to serve community needs and interactions (rather than consumer needs and interactions). This approach makes the distinction between attempts to determine a universally applicable strategy for designing a technology to appeal to a broad "common denominator" in the user population (defined as broadly as possible to maximize potential acceptance), and a focused strategy to direct technology design to a set of subgroups based on a common niche demand which the technology helps to fill (Roy & Wield, 1986, pp. 2-7, 252-256). In one sense, the CoBITS survey is much like a market survey to identify business directions in new technology ventures. The results of the survey do indicate one significant difference between a CoBITS approach to community information services and a market-driven strategy. The results of the survey indicate that very few services should actually be expected to generate universal appeal or interest. Information services with low levels of interest or specialized interest groups is not an indication of poorly used services which should be dropped, but examples of communities of interest which have developed in the local community of place. A very similar parallel can be seen in the development and continued existence of public broadcasting networks (providing alternatives to broadly marketed commercial broadcast networks) and public libraries (to provide general information and a range of materials based on a model of community service, rather than a consumer orientation which underlies a commercial bookstore). In these public information settings, the assumption is that social value exists in providing information services based on a community improvement model rather than a consumer-oriented free market model. Broad popular appeal is not the goal of a community improvement model, so much as the success of addressing the needs and interests of a number of distinct groups of persons who live in a city. + Page 27 + Because it is difficult to ask potential users about services and systems that they do not currently have, this survey cannot directly guide technological innovation. However, the point of the survey was to determine what aspects of technology transfer and adoption where required to broaden the social support of systems to improve the quality of a community of place. An effective community of place is distinct from a community of interests, which can be maintained on the basis of common technological familiarity and comfort (Caldwell & Taha, 1993; Taha & Caldwell, 1993). A community of place must recognize that there are novices and disadvantaged persons which still are part of the community and must be supported as well to maintain the life and quality of the community for all residents. Effective adoption of a community-based information system will be able to service and support these multiple groups from the public / community service model, rather than a consumer-based model or a broad market model searching for a single universal criterion for maximum acceptance. Conclusion The advance of community-based information technology services is at a critical point in both technological and social development. Although there has been significant interest in providing consumer information technology capability, this interest has largely focused on a limited number of directions and potential applications. This paper has instead attempted to address the issues of support for community services enhancement, and how some users may perceive and prefer a distinct range of information services based on a community model rather than a market model. While the survey results presented are limited in their support for statistical and sociological generalizations, they do provide some useful information. The survey is valuable in terms of the user-centered (and community-centered) design approach to determining technology deployment priorities. In addition, the distinct approach to asking questions about community-supportive information services helps to identify a range of potential services to assist various subgroups which coexist in any ongoing community. The premise of the survey was intended to identify a range of social goals that technology development and implementation are intended to achieve. The results of the survey helps to specify some of the services which will work to deliver those goals across a range of community members. A continuing question, which is addressed in a companion article (CoBITS 2), addresses technical requirements which underlie the delivery of community-based information services system design. + Page 28 + Acknowledgments Acknowledgments to Karla Radle, Patrick Rebholz, Gyneth Slygh, and Shiaw-Tsyr Uang, who provided additional assistance in survey design data collection, including identifying and surveying the CoBITS survey population as part of two course projects. Special thanks are due to members of the Wisconsin Community Information Partnership for their interest in this project, and to Charles Piller of MacWorld for his assistance. References Caldwell, B.S. (1993). Strategies to Improve Quality of Engineering Instructional Spaces. Journal of the National Technical Association, 66(2), 16-23. Caldwell, B.S., & Taha, L.H. (1993). Starving at the Banquet: Social Isolation In Electronic Communication Media. IPCT-J: Interpersonal Computing and Technology Electronic Journal, 1(1). Caldwell, B.S., Uang, S.T., & Taha, L.H. (1995). Appropriateness of communications media use in organizations: Situation requirements and media characteristics. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14(4), 199-207. Elmer-Dewitt, P. (1994, July 25). Battle for the Soul of the Internet. Time, 144, 50-56. McCarroll, T. (1991, August 12). What New Age? Time, 44-46. Miller, D., Davis, D.D., & Elio, F. (1990). Computer Use in the Scientific Office. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (Orlando) (pp. 844-848). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. Mokhtarian, P.L. (1991). Telecommuting and Travel: State of the Practice, State of the Art (UCD-ITS-RR-91-05). Davis, CA: UCD Institute of Transportation Studies. Piller, C. (1994, October). Dreamnet. Macworld, 11, 96-105. Powell, F.C. (1982). Statistical Tables for the Social, Biological and Physical Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. + Page 29 + Rogers, E.M. (1986). Elements of diffusion. In R. Roy & D. Wield (Eds.), Product design and technological innovation, (pp. 184-192). Milton Keynes, UK / Philadelphia: Open University Press. Roy, R., & Wield, D. (Eds.). (1986). Product Design and Technological Innovation. Milton Keynes, UK / Philadelphia: Open University Press. Saville, P., & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 219-238. Schaeffermeyer, M.J., & Sewell, E.H.J. (1988). Communicating by Electronic Mail. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(2), 112-123. "Seven Thinkers in Search of an Information Highway" (1994, August/September). Technology Review, 97, 42-52. Taha, L.H., & Caldwell, B.S. (1993). Social Isolation and Integration in Electronic Environments. Behaviour and Information Technology, 12(5), 276- 283. Wright, K. (1990). The Road to the Global Village. Scientific American, 262(3), 83-94. Online Service (from MacWorld Survey) Percentage of Respondents (N=600) Expressing Level of Interest in Service High Mod. Little None Vote in elections 50 17 32 Search reference books 47 23 30 Distance learning 38 27 34 Obtain local school information 38 20 40 Search card catalogs 37 26 36 Participate in opinion polls 33 27 39 Obtain tax/credit data 31 25 43 Participate in electronic town hall 30 27 45 Obtain government information 30 26 43 Video-on-demand 28 29 43 Search magazines / newspapers 27 27 46 Search legal/scientific/medical journals 26 22 52 Obtain legislative voting records 24 21 54 Send video / text E-mail to officials 22 24 53 Obtain industry legal-compliance data 19 17 63 Obtain public records 16 19 64 Video telephony / conferencing 16 15 66 Video or text discussion groups 16 21 61 Obtain local event / marketing information 15 23 62 Sports video-on-demand 11 13 73 Obtain sports statistics 8 10 80 Role-playing interactions 7 9 82 Gambling 6 6 86 Video dating 4 3 92 + Page 30 + Table 1. Summary of Consumer Level of Interest Responses to MacWorld Survey (Piller, 1994, pg. 99) - Write to local government officials - Transfer money (between accounts, to pay bills) - Discuss issues with community experts (gardeners, auto mechanics, doctors, etc.) - Look at community event schedules (movies, sporting events, exhibitions) - Study class work with other students (school, church, other training) - Discuss issues of interest with peers - Look up titles of library materials (books, magazines) - Order library materials (magazine or newspaper articles) to be delivered to you - File public documents (driver's license and license plate renewals) - Access news reports - Look at different companies' financial records (annual reports) - Attend college courses or talk with university professors - Order and view movies / videos at home - Send/receive electronic mail - Look up employment (jobs available) information - Purchase consumer goods (for example, the "Home Shopping Network") - Purchase stocks, bonds, other investments - Access articles on consumer information (for example, "Consumer's Report") - Schedule airline flights and other travel arrangements - Access local bus schedules - Access local and other government information - Order food to be delivered to your home (pizza, etc.) Table 2. List of potential on-line services evaluated in community-based information services survey. Education Level Missing Data 2 Less than High School grad 3 High School grad only 13 Some College 23 Bachelor's Degree 17 Post-Bachelor's Training 22 Computer Expertise Rating Missing Data 1 0 (Novice) 3 1 11 2 20 3 28 4 10 5 (Expert) 7 + Page 31 + Table 3. CoBITS Survey Respondents' Self-Reports of Education Level and Computer Expertise. Information Service Mean Points Std. Dev. Median Points Exchange E-mail 9.69 11.18 6.5 Transfer money 9.51 9.27 10.0 Lookup/retr articles 7.56 8.59 5.0 Filing public docs 6.61 11.20 3.5 Look for jobs 5.50 10.05 0.0 Access consumer info 5.23 5.80 5.0 Community event sched 5.20 5.40 5.0 Scheduling travel 5.15 6.71 4.0 Look up library titles 4.80 6.84 1.0 Have online discussions 4.75 6.56 0.0 Table 4. Community information services obtaining greater than expected point allocations in CoBITS survey. Info. Service /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank No college (N=16) Some college (N=23) BS / graduate training (N=39) Look for job 10.50 (18.0) 1 4.39 (6.2) 3.85 (5.3) Transfer money 9.67 (11.5) 2 9.74 (8.4) 1 9.31 (8.9) 2 Obtain government info 7.44 (17.9) 3 3.74 (5.8) 2.21 (3.3) File public documents 6.61 (12.4) 4 8.74 (16.1) 3 5.36 (6.2) 6 Exchange e-mail 6.33 (9.8) 5 9.17 (12.7) 2 11.54 (10.7) 1 Order food 5.78 (9.0) 6 4.17 (4.9) 2.46 (3.8) Discussion groups 5.50 (6.0) 7 4.74 (7.2) 4.41 (6.5) Obtain articles 4.33 (5.9) 7.22 (6.7) 4 9.26 (10.2) 3 Financial investments .72 (2.4) 5.96 (9.4) 5 3.33 (7.1) Community schedules 5.06 (7.2) 5.78 (4.7) 6 4.92 (5.0) Travel schedules 5.39 (10.3) 5.26 (6.2) 7 4.97 (4.9) Consumer information 5.33 (7.0) 4.39 (5.5) 5.67 (5.4) 4 Check library titles 5.50 (7.6) 2.87 (5.8) 5.62 (7.0) 5 Ask experts 1.78 (4.2) 3.44 (5.1) 5.21 (10.2) 7 + Page 32 + Table 5. Mean point allocations and ranks by education level (df=13): Friedman T=536.9, Kendall W=.516, p < .00001. Info. Service /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank Novice (N=14) Intermediate (N=48) Expert (N=17) (rating of 0 or 1) (rating of 2 or 3) (rating of 4 or 5) Transfer money 8.57 (9.3) 1 9.98 (10.3) 1 8.82 (6.1) 3 Look for jobs 8.57 (19.8) 2 5.23 (6.5) 7 4.06 (6.6) Obtain articles 8.21 (7.5) 3 6.69 (8.7) 4 9.71 (9.3) 2 Exchange e-mail 7.86 (8.7) 4 9.04 (12.3) 2 13.59 (9.3) 1 Order food 7.50 (9.4) 5 3.38 (4.7) 1.71 (3.0) Travel schedules 6.79 (10.5) 6 4.81 (5.7) 5.06 (5.7) 7 Movies on demand 6.79 (11.2) 7 1.81 (3.4) 2.94 (3.8) File public documents 2.50 (4.3) 7.83 (13.5) 3 6.94 (6.7) 5 Discussion groups 2.86 (5.8) 5.42 (7.2) 5 4.00 (4.9) Community schedules 5.71 (6.2) 5.29 (5.5) 6 4.12 (4.5) Ask experts 2.86 (5.8) 3.02 (4.6) 7.59 (14.2) 4 Consumer information 4.64 (6.6) 5.17 (6.2) 5.47 (3.8) 6 Table 6. Mean point allocations and ranks by expertise level (df=11): Friedman T=586.6, Kendall W=.675, p < .00001. Info. Service /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank Childless (N=29) Parents (N=47) Kids (N=4) Exchange e-mail 13.10 (12.5) 1 8.02 (10.2) 2 4.50 (7.1) Obtain articles 9.35 (11.4) 2 6.23 (6.1) 4 10.25 (10.1) 4 Transfer money 9.07 (8.4) 3 10.23 (10.0) 1 4.25 (5.7) File public docs 6.31 (8.4) 4 7.32 (13.0) 3 .50 (1.0) Look for jobs 6.07 (6.8) 5 5.40 (12.0) 7 2.50 (5.0) Check library titles 6.07 (8.1) 6 4.17 (6.0) 3.00 (6.0) Travel schedules 5.21 (5.7) 7 5.53 (7.4) .25 (.5) Consumer information 4.31 (5.2) 5.96 (6.1) 5 3.25 (5.9) Community schedules 4.31 (4.6) 5.55 (5.7) 6 7.50 (7.1) 6 Discussion groups 3.83 (5.8) 4.51 (6.7) 14.25 (1.5) 1 Homework line 1.93 (3.4) 1.75 (4.7) 12.25 (7.6) 2 Movies on demand 2.07 (4.1) 2.89 (5.0) 12.00 (16.3) 3 Courses and profs 2.00 (4.2) 4.70 (6.6) 8.50 (6.6) 5 Order food 3.03 (3.9) 3.79 (5.6) 7.50 (15.0) 7 + Page 33 + Table 7. Mean point allocations and ranks by family status (df=13): Friedman T=881.6, Kendall W=.780, p < .00001. Info. Service /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank /Mean Pts (SD) Rank Childless (N=29) Parents (N=47) Kids (N=4) Exchange e-mail 13.10 (12.5) 1 8.02 (10.2) 24.50 (7.1) Obtain articles 9.35 (11.4) 2 6.23 (6.1) 410.25 (10.1) 4 Transfer money 9.07 (8.4) 3 10.23 (10.0) 1 4.25 (5.7) File public docs 6.31 (8.4) 4 7.32 (13.0) 3 .50 (1.0) Look for jobs 6.07 (6.8) 5 5.40 (12.0) 7 2.50 (5.0) Check library titles 6.07 (8.1) 6 4.17 (6.0) 3.00 (6.0) Travel schedules 5.21 (5.7) 7 5.53 (7.4) .25 (.5) Consumer information 4.31 (5.2) 5.96 (6.1) 5 3.25 (5.9) Community schedules 4.31 (4.6) 5.55 (5.7) 6 7.50 (7.1) 6 Discussion groups 3.83 (5.8) 4.51 (6.7) 14.25 (1.5) 1 Homework line 1.93 (3.4) 1.75 (4.7) 12.25 (7.6) 2 Movies on demand 2.07 (4.1) 2.89 (5.0) 12.00 (16.3) 3 Courses and profs 2.00 (4.2) 4.70 (6.6) 8.50 (6.6) 5 Order food 3.03 (3.9) 3.79 (5.6) 7.50 (15.0) 7 ===================== CONTACT INFORMATION ======================= Barrett S. Caldwell, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison 1513 University Ave., Rm 393 Madison, WI 53706-1572 ph: (608) 262-2414; fax: (608) 262-8454 http://www.engr.wisc.edu/ie/faculty/bsc.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright Statement ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century Copyright 1996 University of Maryland Baltimore County. Copyright of individual articles in this publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by the University of Maryland Baltimore County. It is asked that any republication of this article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J. Contributions to IPCT-J can be submitted by electronic mail in APA style to: Susan Barnes, Editor IPCT-J SBBARNES@PILELINE.COM