Exploring an Ontological Approach for User Requirements Elicitation in the Design of Online Virtual Agents

  • Katarzyna Ossowska
  • Liliana Szewc
  • Paweł Weichbroth
  • Igor Garnik
  • Marcin Sikorski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 264)

Abstract

Effective user requirements elicitation is a key factor for the success of software development projects. There are many qualitative and quantitative research studies that promulgate particular methods and show the application of user requirements elicitation in particular domains. However, few try to eliminate the burden of ambiguity in gathered data, naturally occurring in different groups of stakeholders. This paper deals with this problem by introducing an ontology-based approach which by design provides a shared and common understanding of a domain. On the other hand, the developed ontology is a feasible communication facility for the stakeholders involved, acknowledged and controlled by a group of experts.

Keywords

Virtual agents Ontologies Benefits Requirements Elicitation 

References

  1. 1.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., Beale, R.: Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall, Harlow (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowdermilk, T.: User-Centered Design: A Developer’s Guide to Building User-Friendly Applications. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garrett, J.J.: The Elements of User Experience. New Riders, Indianapolis (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartson, R., Pyla, P.: The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J.: This is Service Design Thinking. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abbattista, F., Loops, P., Semerano, G., Andersen, H.: Evaluating virtual agents for e-commerce. In: Falcone, R., Barber, S., Korba, L., Singh, M.P. (eds.) AAMAS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2361. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E.F.: Embodied Conversational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lester, J., Branting, K., Mott, B.: Conversational agents. In: Singh, M.P. (ed.) The Practical Handbook of Internet Computing. CRC Press (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lunardo, R., Bressoles, G., Durrieu, F.: The interacting effect of virtual agents’ gender and dressing style on attractiveness and subsequent consumer online behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 30, 59–66 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cassell, J.: More than just another pretty face: embodied conversational interface agents. Commun. ACM 43(A), 70–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pentina, I., Taylor, D.G.: Exploring source effects for online sales outcomes: the role of avatar-buyer similarity. J. Customer Behav. 9(2), 135–150 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Payne, J., Szymkowiak, A., Robertson, P., Johnson, G.: Gendering the machine: preferred virtual assistant gender and realism in self-service. In: Aylett, R., Krenn, B., Pelachaud, C., Shimodaira, H. (eds.) IVA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8108, pp. 106–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40415-3_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ales, Z., Duplessis, G.D., Serban, O., Pauchet, A.: A methodology to design human-like embodied conversational agents based on dialogue analysis. In: Proceedings of First International Workshop on Human-Agent Interaction Design and Models (HAIDM), AAMAS, pp. 34–50 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Przybyłek, A.: A business-oriented approach to requirements elicitation. In: 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, Lisbon (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sommerville, I., Kotonya, G.: Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheinholtz, L.A., Wilmont, I.: Interview patterns for requirements elicitation. In: Berry, D. (ed.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 6606, pp. 72–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19858-8_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu-Cheng, T., Tempero, E.D., Thomborson, C.D.: An experiment on the impact of transparency on the effectiveness of requirements documents. Empirical Softw. Eng. 21(3), 1035–1066 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sakhnini, V., Mich, L., Berry, D.M.: The effectiveness of an optimized EPMcreate as a creativity enhancement technique for web site requirements elicitation. Requirements Eng. 17(3), 171–186 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gausepohl, K.A., Winchester III, W.W., Smith-Jackson, T.L., Kleiner, B.M., Arthur, J.D.: A conceptual model for the role of storytelling in design: leveraging narrative inquiry in user-centered design (UCD). Health Technol. 6(2), 1–12 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sikorski, M.: User-System Interaction Design in IT Projects. Gdansk University of Technology, Gdansk (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weichbroth, P., Sikorski, M.: User interface prototyping. techniques, methods and tools. In: Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, vol. 234, pp. 184–198, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prabhala, S., Loi, D., Ganapathy, S.: Ethnography, ethnography or ethnography? what happens when the same word means different things to different people? In: Marcus, A. (ed.) HCII 2011 and DUXU 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6769, pp. 102–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21675-6_12 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rieu, D., Santorum, M., Movahedian, F.: A participative end-user method for multi-perspective business process elicitation and improvement. Softw. Syst. Model. 1–24, 6 August 2015. doi: 10.1007/s10270-015-0489-6
  24. 24.
    Seganti, A., Kaplanski, P., Zarzycki, P.: Collaborative editing of ontologies using fluent editor and ontorion. In: Tamma, V., Dragoni, M., Gonçalves, R., Lawrynowicz, A. (eds.) OWLED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9557, pp. 45–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33245-1_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaplanski, P., Weichbroth, P.: Cognitum ontorion: knowledge representation and reasoning system. In: Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS 2015), pp. 177–184 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarzyna Ossowska
    • 1
  • Liliana Szewc
    • 1
  • Paweł Weichbroth
    • 1
  • Igor Garnik
    • 1
  • Marcin Sikorski
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management and Economics, Department of Applied Business InformaticsGdansk University of TechnologyGdanskPoland

Personalised recommendations