Recent Changes

Monday, January 15

  1. page 'Right' vs. 'correct' edited ... For "correct?", you'd expect "correct" or "incorrect". Note tha…
    ...
    For "correct?", you'd expect "correct" or "incorrect".
    Note that the responses for "correct?" have substantially greater acoustic similarity than those for "right?" For this reason and because "right?" seems to be slightly more commonly used in conversation, we recommend "right?" over "correct?" if the choice is between the two alone. On the other hand, the occasional use of "correct?" to avoid robotically using the same method in a dialog that includes multiple confirmations should be fine -- just be sure to routinely examine the recognition logs to make sure you're getting high enough recognition accuracy at that prompt. If not, consider switching to a different style.
    ...
    accept "right" and "correct" as a synonymsynonyms for "yes").
    (view changes)
    12:39 pm

Wednesday, December 13

  1. page When to confirm - Basic confirmation strategies edited ... You have knowledge about special needs from the user population that indicate they would benef…
    ...
    You have knowledge about special needs from the user population that indicate they would benefit from more than the standard amount of confirmation (e.g., this would make them more comfortable even though the procedure is less efficient.)
    There is evidence of low confidence from the recognition system.
    ...
    deal with problematic user input
    Simply accept the input and move on
    Reject the input and reprompt (also see: How to phrase reprompts for a given situation)
    (view changes)
    1:29 pm
  2. page When to confirm - Basic confirmation strategies edited ... There are enterprise business rules that require confirmation before executing a transaction. …
    ...
    There are enterprise business rules that require confirmation before executing a transaction.
    You have knowledge about special needs from the user population that indicate they would benefit from more than the standard amount of confirmation (e.g., this would make them more comfortable even though the procedure is less efficient.)
    ...
    evidence of low-confidencelow confidence from the
    There are a number of different ways in which applications deal with user input (McInnes et al., 1999; McTear et al., 2005), for example:
    Simply accept the input and move on
    (view changes)
    1:27 pm
  3. page When to confirm - Basic confirmation strategies edited It takes time to confirm user input, so the first rule of confirmation is don't do it unless you mu…
    It takes time to confirm user input, so the first rule of confirmation is don't do it unless you must (Damper & Gladstone, 2007). Some of the situations in which you should confirm are:
    The consequence of misrecognition is moderate to high.
    ...
    executing a transaction (this is essentially a specific example if the previous item which common in financial and reservations applications.)transaction.
    You have knowledge about special needs from the user population that indicate they would benefit from more than the standard amount of confirmation (e.g., this would make them more comfortable even though the procedure is less efficient.)
    There is evidence of low-confidence from the recognition system.
    (view changes)
    1:26 pm

Tuesday, February 14

  1. msg 1 yes 2 no message posted 1 yes 2 no I would argue that 1 for yes and 2 for no is so common that it should be considered a standard.
    1 yes 2 no
    I would argue that 1 for yes and 2 for no is so common that it should be considered a standard.
    6:55 am

Thursday, August 18

  1. page Chapter 9 - Modality edited ... Special keys (i.e., star, pound, zero) should be avoided for use by menu options. Zero should …
    ...
    Special keys (i.e., star, pound, zero) should be avoided for use by menu options. Zero should never be used for anything other than operator. Star and pound are often reserved for universal navigation, and even if they are not in your system, assigning menu options to them is confusing to callers.
    If the IVR will make use of dynamic menus (only a subset of menu options will be offered based on some characteristic of the caller), then it is better to renumber the DTMF options of the menu (i.e., 1-2-3-4) rather than leave gaps (i.e., 1-2-4). However, it should be noted that renumbering menus can have negative effects if the application has a large base of power users that rapidly navigate the system from memory.
    ...
    of "press". Note that this strategy might not work well when the user's choices include numbers -- if that's the case, you'll need to include "press" before each DTMF number.
    References
    Attwater, D. (2008). Speech and touch-tone in harmony [PowerPoint Slides]. Paper presented at SpeechTek 2008. New York, NY: SpeechTek.
    (view changes)
    12:24 pm

Wednesday, June 15

  1. page References edited ... Attwater, D. (2008). Speech and touch-tone in harmony [PowerPoint Slides]. Paper presented at …
    ...
    Attwater, D. (2008). Speech and touch-tone in harmony [PowerPoint Slides]. Paper presented at SpeechTek 2008. New York, NY: SpeechTek.
    Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56, 851-864.
    Bailey, R. W. (1989). Human performance engineering: Using human factors/ergonomics to achieve computer system usability. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Bailly, G. (2003). Close shadowing natural versus synthetic speech. International Journal of Speech Technology, 6, 11–19.
    Balentine, B. (1999). Re-engineering the speech menu. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 205-235). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    ...
    Barkin, E. (2009). But is it natural? Speech Technology, 14(2), 21–24.
    Beattie, G. W., & Barnard, P. J. (1979). The temporal structure of natural telephone conversations (directory enquiry calls). Linguistics, 17, 213–229.
    Berndt, R. S., Mitchum, C., Burton, M., & Haendiges, A. (2004). Comprehension of reversible sentences in aphasia: The effects of verb meaning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 229–245.
    Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Meuter, M. L. (2002). Implementing successful self-service technologies. Academy of Management Executive, 16(4), 96–108.
    Bloom, J., Gilbert, J. E., Houwing, T., Hura, S., Issar, S., Kaiser, L., et al. (2005). Ten criteria for measuring effective voice user interfaces. Speech Technology, 10(9), 31–35.
    ...
    Boyce, S. J. (2008). User interface design for natural language systems: From research to reality. In D. Gardner-Bonneau & H. E. Blanchard (Eds.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (2nd ed.) (pp. 43–80). New York, NY: Springer.
    Boyce, S., & Viets, M. (2010). When is it my turn to talk?: Building smart, lean menus. In W. Meisel (Ed.), Speech in the user interface: Lessons from experience (pp. 108–112). Victoria, Canada: TMA Associates.
    Broadbent, D. E. (1977). Language and ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 8, 15–18.
    Byrne, B. (2003). “Conversational” isn’t always what you think it is. Speech Technology, 8(4), 16–19.
    Callejas, Z., & López-Cózar, R. (2008). Relations between de-facto criteria in the evaluation of a spoken dialogue system. Speech Communication, 50, 646-665.
    ...
    Edworthy, J. & Hellier, E. (2006). Complex nonverbal auditory signals and speech warnings. In (Wogalter, M. S., Ed.) Handbook of Warnings (pp. 199-220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Enterprise Integration Group. (2000). Speech Recognition 1999 R&D Program: User interface design recommendations final report. San Ramon, CA: Author.
    Ervin-Tripp, S. (1993). Conversational discourse. In J. B. Gleason & N. B. Ratner (Eds.), Psycholinguistics (pp. 238–270). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    Evans, D. G., Draffan, E. A., James, A., & Blenkhorn, P. (2006). Do text-to-speech synthesizers pronounce correctly? A preliminary study. In K. Miesenberger et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of ICCHP (pp. 855–862). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
    Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.
    Fosler-Lussier, E., Amdal, I., & Juo, H. J. (2005). A framework for predicting speech recognition errors. Speech Communication, 46, 153–170.
    Frankish, C., & Noyes, J. (1990). Sources of human error in data entry tasks using speech input. Human Factors, 32(6), 697–716.
    Fried, J., & Edmondson, R. (2006). How customer perceived latency measures success in voice self-service. Business Communications Review, 36(3), 26–32.
    Fröhlich, P. (2005). Dealing with system response times in interactive speech applications. In Proceedings of CHI 2005 (pp. 1379–1382). Portland, OR: ACM.
    Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (1998). An introduction to language (6th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    Gardner-Bonneau, D. J. (1992). Human factors in interactive voice response applications: “Common sense” is an uncommon commodity. Journal of the American Voice I/O Society, 12, 1-12.
    Gardner-Bonneau, D. (1999). Guidelines for speech-enabled IVR application design. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 147-162). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Garrett, M. F. (1990). Sentence processing. In D. N. Osherson & H. Lasnik (Eds.), Language: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 133–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Gleason, J. B., & Ratner, N. B. (1993). Psycholinguistics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    Gould, J. D., Boies, S. J., Levy, S., Richards, J. T., & Schoonard, J. (1987). The 1984 Olympics message system: A test of behavioral principles of system design. Communications of the ACM, 30, 758-569.
    ...
    Lewis, J.R. (1982). Testing small system customer set-up. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting (pp. 718-720). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
    Lewis, J. R. (2005). Frequency distributions for names and unconstrained words associated with the letters of the English alphabet. In Proceedings of HCI International 2005: Posters (pp. 1–5). St. Louis, MO: Mira Digital Publication. Available at http://drjim.0catch.com/hcii05-368-wordfrequency.pdf.
    Lewis, J. R. (2006). Effectiveness of various automated readability measures for the competitive evaluation of user documentation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th annual meeting (pp. 624–628). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
    Lewis, J. R. (2007). Advantages and disadvantages of press or say <x> speech user interfaces (Tech. Rep. BCR-UX-2007-0002. Retrieved from http://drjim.0catch.com/2007_AdvantagesAndDisadvantagesOfPressOrSaySpeechUserInter.pdf). Boca Raton, FL: IBM Corp.
    Lewis, J. R. (2008). Usability evaluation of a speech recognition IVR. In T. Tullis & B. Albert (Eds.), Measuring the user experience, Chapter 10: Case studies (pp. 244–252). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Morgan-Kaufman.
    ...
    McTear, M., O’Neill, I., Hanna, P., & Liu, X. (2005). Handling errors and determining confirmation strategies—an object based approach. Speech Communication, 45, 249–269.
    Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
    Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 17, 748–762.
    Minker, W., Pitterman, J., Pitterman, A., Strauß, P.-M., & Bühler, D. (2007). Challenges in speech-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Speech Technology, 10, 109–119.
    Mościcki, E.K., Elkins, E. F., Baum, H. M., & McNamara, P. M. (1985). Hearing loss in the elderly: An epidemiologic study of the Framingham Heart Study cohort. Ear and Hearing Journal, 6, 184-190.
    ...
    Polkosky, M. D. (2005a). Toward a social-cognitive psychology of speech technology: Affective responses to speech-based e-service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
    Polkosky, M. D. (2005b). What is speech usability, anyway? Speech Technology, 10(9), 22–25.
    Polkosky, M. D. (2006). Respect: It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Speech Technology, 11(5), 16–21.
    Polkosky, M. D. (2008). Machines as mediators: The challenge of technology for interpersonal communication theory and research. In E. Konjin (Ed.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 34–57). New York, NY: Routledge.
    Polkosky, M. D., & Lewis, J. R. (2002). Effect of auditory waiting cues on time estimation in speech recognition telephony applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 423–446.
    ...
    Wolters, M., Georgila, K., Moore, J. D., Logie, R. H., MacPherson, S. E., & Watson, M. (2009). Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems. Interacting with Computers, 21, 276-287.
    Wright, L. E., Hartley, M. W., & Lewis, J. R. (2002). Conditional probabilities for IBM Voice Browser 2.0 alpha and alphanumeric recognition (Tech. Rep. 29.3498. Retrieved from http://drjim.0catch.com/alpha2-acc.pdf). West Palm Beach, FL: IBM.
    Yagil, D. (2001). Ingratiation and assertiveness in the service provider-customer dyad. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 345–353.
    Yang, F., & Heeman, P. A. (2010). Initiative conflicts in task-oriented dialogue. Computer Speech and Language, 24, 175–189.
    Yellin, E. (2009). Your call is (not that) important to us: Customer service and what it reveals about our world and our lives. New York, NY: Free Press.
    ...
    Yuschik, M. (2008). Silence locations and durations in dialog management. In D. Gardner-Bonneau & H. E. Blanchard (Eds.), Human factors and voice interactive systems, 2nd edition (pp. 231-253). New York, NY: Springer.
    Zoltan-Ford, E. (1991). How to get people to say and type what computers can understand. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 527–547.
    Zurif, E. B. (1990). Language and the brain. In D. N. Osherson & H. Lasnik (Eds.), Language: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 177–198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    (view changes)
    8:24 am
  2. page Syntactic Considerations edited ... A payment was made by you (passive voice with subject in prepositional phrase) A payment was …
    ...
    A payment was made by you (passive voice with subject in prepositional phrase)
    A payment was made (passive voice with no subject)
    ...
    avoiding responsibility. Finally overuseOveruse of passive
    There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, especially when designing conversational and/or customer service dialogs. Conversation does not take place in a vacuum. There must be at least two participants, and as soon as you have two entities talking to one another, you have a social situation. Suppose two people are working together to solve a puzzle. The way they speak to one another will differ if they are parent and child, siblings, close friends, distant acquaintances, co-workers, or worker and manager. The various ways in which we address one another reflect our social relationships. Slang and jargon can establish who is in and who is out of different social groups (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 1998). Another aspect of social consideration in conversation is the directness of a request. Consider the following:
    Pour me a cup of coffee.
    ...
    Would you please pour me a cup of coffee?
    Is there any more coffee?
    ...
    much the requestorrequester wants the
    Getting this aspect of tone correct plays an important role in creating a satisfactory interaction between a customer and a service provider (Polkosky, 2006). Less direct (more deferential) requests from the service provider imply greater choice on the part of the customer, which increases the customer’s satisfaction with the service (Yagil, 2001). Customers might not be able to articulate why they perceive or fail to perceive an appropriate level of respect from a service provider, but they have the very human capacity to detect an inappropriate tone and have a corresponding negative emotional reaction. Common politeness markers include phrases such as “could you” and “would you mind” (Ervin-Tripp, 1993). Even though the syntactic form these expressions take is that of a yes/no question (“Would you please pour me a cup of coffee?”; “Is there any more coffee?”), the clear implication is that these are requests. Only someone who is refusing to cooperate in the conversation, possibly as an indication of anger or an attempt at humor, would respond with a simple “yes” or “no” rather than just smiling and pouring the coffee. Passive voice provides another way to reduce the directness of requests.
    Some examples of appropriate use of passive voice are:
    Focus: To put the focus on the object of the sentence -- That car was parked by John.
    ...
    in dialog (Cohen, Giangola, & Balogh, 2004) -- A:
    ...
    end focus more efficiently without passive
    Scientific writing: To avoid the use of personal pronouns (“I,” “we”) in scientific or other formal writing. Note that this practice has been changing, especially in human factors and psychology -- The expected effect was not found.
    Common construction: Although Mrs. Smith did the work, we would normally say -- John Smith was born on January 5, 1984.
    ...
    If you're 14 years old or younger, please complete Form 123ABC to renew your passport. Or, if you're older than 14, please complete form 456DEF for passport renewal.
    References
    Bailey, R. W. (1989). Human performance engineering: Using human factors/ergonomics to achieve computer system usability. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Berndt, R. S., Mitchum, C., Burton, M., & Haendiges, A. (2004). Comprehension of reversible sentences in aphasia: The effects of verb meaning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 229–245.
    Broadbent, D. E. (1977). Language and ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 8, 15–18.
    Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Cohen, M. H., Giangola, J. P., & Balogh, J. (2004). Voice user interface design. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    Ervin-Tripp, S. (1993). Conversational discourse. In J. B. Gleason & N. B. Ratner (Eds.), Psycholinguistics (pp. 238–270). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.
    Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (1998). An introduction to language (6th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    Garrett, M. F. (1990). Sentence processing. In D. N. Osherson and H. Lasnik (Eds.), Language: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 133–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Lewis, J. R. (2006). Effectiveness of various automated readability measures for the competitive evaluation of user documentation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th annual meeting (pp. 624–628). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
    Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 17, 748–762.
    Polkosky, M. D. (2006). Respect: It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Speech Technology, 11(5), 16–21.
    Yagil, D. (2001). Ingratiation and assertiveness in the service provider-customer dyad. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 345–353.
    Zurif, E. B. (1990). Language and the brain. In D. N. Osherson & H. Lasnik (Eds.), Language: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 177–198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    (view changes)
    8:15 am
  3. page Syntactic Considerations edited ... A payment was made by you (passive voice with subject in prepositional phrase) A payment was …
    ...
    A payment was made by you (passive voice with subject in prepositional phrase)
    A payment was made (passive voice with no subject)
    ...
    Passive voice leadscan lead to wordier,
    There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, especially when designing conversational and/or customer service dialogs. Conversation does not take place in a vacuum. There must be at least two participants, and as soon as you have two entities talking to one another, you have a social situation. Suppose two people are working together to solve a puzzle. The way they speak to one another will differ if they are parent and child, siblings, close friends, distant acquaintances, co-workers, or worker and manager. The various ways in which we address one another reflect our social relationships. Slang and jargon can establish who is in and who is out of different social groups (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 1998). Another aspect of social consideration in conversation is the directness of a request. Consider the following:
    Pour me a cup of coffee.
    (view changes)
    7:56 am

More