Sugar and Spice…Not!

Susan Hura wrote an interesting article for SpeechTech magazine discussing the critical requirement that a VUI designer really understands the business logic used in all of the different interaction channels offered by a client. It is worth reading just for that discussion alone. She always has good insights. FYI, I myself am definitely in the behavioral science camp, in case you were wondering. Anyway, she ended with a reference to an earlier article describing the reaction to two differently worded prompts intended to take the caller to an agent.

…”The only difference between the prompts was wording and how each influenced users’ perceptions of why they were being asked to make a selection. For the first prompt (OK, I can transfer you to an agent after you make a selection), we noted a very odd pattern: Many users selected what we knew to be low-frequency options, randomly responding with the last option they heard before requesting an agent. The reason behind this odd pattern became clear once we studied responses to the second prompt (OK, I’ll get you to an agent, but first please tell me if you need help with A, B, C, or D). Users in this case successfully and happily made appropriate selections and were almost always routed correctly; this prompt obviously motivates users to make a good choice because there is a direct benefit to them. The same benefit exists for the first prompt, but the wording makes the selection seem like just another hoop they must jump through for the sake of the automated system.”

She concludes that promising a reward for good behavior, in her words, “cajoling to cooperate”, increases caller buy in with an automated system, causing them “…to view automation as a tool for accomplishing their goals rather than as a barrier between them and a live agent.” And sure, that is our goal. But I beg to differ. I am not convinced that it is as fuzzy as all of that. Clear direction isn’t necessarily cajoling. Setting the expectation of the caller that: if x then y, is always better than: if some x or another then I can y. I would posit that the indeterminate gray area caused the random option selection, not some subtle manipulative coercion with sweet nothings, I mean, wording.

What was missing in the first prompt was the implication that the caller would be routed correctly to the agent that could best help them. Note the emotive context that Susan used to describe the caller’s reaction—“successfully and happily”, jump through the hoops for the app—when I use a tool, I rarely care one way or the other about it unless it doesn’t perform as expected.

My good friend Leslie, a Public Defender in N. GA, once explained to me that a computer was no different than a toaster. She wanted to turn it on and use it without giving it any thought. Press the buttons, and words come out on the screen. No more, no less. No interference between her and her goal. Pop! Here is my toast, hot and ready for butter and marmalade.

I believe that the VUI should do the same thing. Act like a well designed tool that assists you in accomplishing your task without getting in the way or adding to the experience at all one way or the other.

Transparency.

1 From http://ilovemytoaster.com/

For what it’s worth, this is a cute bit on another toaster. But I digress.

No Comments yet »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment