Effects of Prolonged Use on the Usability of a Multimodal Form-Filling Interface

  • Janienke Sturm
  • Bert Cranen
  • Jacques Terken
  • Ilse Bakx
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 28)

Abstract

We present a study of the effect of prolonged use on the way users interact with a multimodal form-filling system. The system accepts spoken input as well as pointing input and provides output both in speech and in graphics. We measured the usability of the system in a pre-test / post-test design and analysed in detail the changes in interaction patterns due to exposure. The study shows that with practice users learn to develop interaction patterns that ensure reliable and efficient interaction, resulting in decreased dialogue duration and more user satisfaction.

Keywords

Dialogue management Multimodal interaction Speech/pen-based interaction Usability evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bilici, V., Krahmer, E., Riele, S. T., and Veldhuis, R. (2000). Preferred modalities in dialogue systems. In Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), pages 727–730, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  2. Bolt, R. A. (1980). Put-that-there: Voice and gesture at the graphics interface. Computer Graphics, 14(3):262–270.Google Scholar
  3. Karat, J., Horn, D., Halverson, C., and Karat, C. (2000). Overcoming unusability: Developing efficient strategies in speech recognition systems. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Litman, D. and Pan, S. (1999). Empirically evaluating an adaptable spoken dialogue system. In Kay, J., editor, Proceedings of International Conference on User Modeling (UM), pages 55–64, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Maybury, M. and Wahlster, W. (1998). Readings in Intelligent User Interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Nigay, L. and Coutaz, J. (1993). A design space for multimodal systems: concurrent processing and data fusion. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pages 172–178, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Oviatt, S. (1999). Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Communications of the ACM, 42(11):74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Oviatt, S. (2000). Taming recognition errors with a multimodal interface. Communications of the ACM, 43(9):45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Oviatt, S., DeAngeli, A., and Kuhn, K. (1997). Integration and synchronization of input modes during multimodal human-computer interaction. In Pemberton, S., Rosson, M. B., and Preece, J., editors, Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '97 Conference Proceedings, pages 415–422. ACM, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Petrelli, D., DeAngeli, A., Gerbino, W., and Cassano, G. (1997). Referring in multimodal systems, the importance of user expertise and system features. In Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-EACL), pages 14–17, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  11. Reeves, B. and Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Sturm, J., Bakx, I., Cranen, B., and Terken, J. (2003). Comparing the usability of a user driven and a mixed initiative multimodal dialogue system for train timetable information. In Proceedings of European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH), pages 2245–2248, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  14. Sturm, J., Bakx, I., Cranen, B., Terken, J., and Wang, F. (2002). Usability evaluation of a Dutch multimodal system for railway information. In Proceedings of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation(LREC), pages 255–261, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Spain.Google Scholar
  15. Sturm, J., Cranen, B., and Wang, F. (2001). Adding extra input/output modalities to a spoken dialogue system. In Proceedings of ACL SIGdial Workshopon Discourse and Dialogue, pages 162–165, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  16. Suhm, B., Myers, B., and Waibel, A. (1999). Model-based and empirical evaluation of multimodal interactive error correction. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pages 584–591, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Terken, J. and Riele, S. T. (2001). Supporting the construction of a user model in speech-only interfaces by adding multimodality. In Proceedings of European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH), pages 2177–2180, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  18. Walker, M., Hindle, D., Fromer, J., Fabbrizio, G. D., and Mestel, C. (1997). Evaluating competing agent strategies for a voice email agent. In Proceedings of European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH), pages 2219–2222, Rhodes, Greece.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janienke Sturm
    • 1
  • Bert Cranen
    • 1
  • Jacques Terken
    • 2
  • Ilse Bakx
    • 2
  1. 1.Department Language and SpeechUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignTU EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations