Voice User Interface Design VUI

Whenever I visit an art museum and get exposed to various painting styles, I’ve got to admit I prefer Realism over other painting styles, especially those belonging to Surrealist or Abstract art movements. And I guess part of it is because with Realism, we all tend to converge on the meaning of an image and the qualities of the artists, whereas on other styles, both the meaning and interpretation of the piece are absolutely subjective and the beauty of it are in the eye of the beholder.

Reflecting upon those things, I ran across Mark Hurst’s Good Experience newsletter that talked something similar, but in the context of wine. He talked about how “the experience of drinking wine is determined less by the wine itself and more by the consumer’s own expectations for the wine.”

In particular, the thing that baffled me was the New Yorker article about the research done at the University of Bordeaux where participants provided opposite feedback for the exact same wine only because it had a different label, which created a very different set of expectations on them. Furthermore, in the second example, participants in Vegas not only had different expectations but actually showed that customers preferred a fake thing over a real one.

Which made me think about our reality in the world of VUI design and the expectations caller have when the reach a self-service system. Would we see similar responses if we were to simply change the label of our solutions? What would happen if we were to give callers a fake thing (automation) and call it real (agent)? Is part of our challenge as VUI designers to help morph the expectations callers bring to the call to something different, more advantageous for the actual experience?

Digging deeper on that last thought, I kept thinking about my recent experience with self-service solutions as well as feedback I received from friends, family and peers that have used speech recognition systems… I noticed there was a strong correlation between how “good” they felt the system was and the expectation they had when they picked up the phone in the first place.

For example, someone was having a technical issue during the early morning hours and needed help right away. They first attempted to solve it by themselves via manuals and web queries with little success. Therefore they had as a last resort the option of attempting to talk to someone (knowing that most likely they would get an “our offices are currently closed” type of message). In that scenario, being able to reach an automated system that was able to retrieve that customer’s information from the number they dialed from (ANI) and was able to provide step-by-step instructions on how to restore the system back to normal, yielded an “extraordinary experience” for that customer.

But those types of expectations come included with the caller and the context of the situation. So here’s the question again, is it possible to change those expectations on the fly, while a caller is interacting with the system? Are there other fields out there that may be already doing it from which we can learn? Advertising maybe?

Monthly phone service: $49.99. New phone: $19.99. Privacy: Priceless.

Is it really priceless? If you had to put a price to it, what would it be?

A new start-up called Pudding Media thinks it has an answer for that, and it is a lot lower than you would think: free calls.

In a very similar way to how Google found a way to monetize search via intelligent and targeted ads based on either regular web searches or by the content’s of their GMail email inboxes, Pudding Media is attempting to do something similar by using the telephone.

Nowadays, we’re all used to those messages about how “your call may be recorded for quality purposes”, which we now at the end of the day doesn’t provide any real benefit to the actual caller. But in this case, it is not only about quality anymore but about finding new ways to reach consumers while we have their attention.

Flagged as “enriched phone conversations with relevant and interesting content”, the way their offering works is that you’re offered a web-based phone service where you can dial a number and engage in a conversation for free. The trade-off of course is that by doing that, you agreed to allow Pudding Media to eavesdrop on your conversation so that relevant ads can be displayed on your screen during your conversation. Speech recognition software monitors the calls, and then their system decides which ads to present based on the content of that call.

Since the whole system is automated via the use of speech recognition, their response to the question about privacy is that no calls are recorded and no humans are involved in any part of the process, so your calls are safe. Nevertheless, to me it is a step closer to my original question of how much is your privacy worth, specially because from an advertiser’s perspective, they are offered flexibility in targeting, placement and format of advertising based on demographic information, location and even context of the conversation. Furthermore, ads can be placed before, during or after a call or a message is retrieved, and can be displayed on your computer screen, delivered as a message or as actual audio prompts that are streamed before the call connects.

Considering some of the bad press self-service automation has received, I would love to see this concept applied in more proactive, less advertising-driven ways. For example, imagine a multi-modal experience obtained by expanding the live chat capabilities most service websites offer now to allow for someone to pick up the phone and talk to someone on the other end. Then, while the conversation takes place, the website could be updated with relevant information about a particular issue, a list of FAQs while the calls is on hold, and why not even offer discount coupons based on how long callers have to wait in line, or even gift certificates if the system identifies the caller has been calling multiple times regarding the same issue.

Now, that to me would be priceless.

Do you love me?

I was just reading an article on Fortune asking the question of whether your customers love you or not.

Similar to the recent post I had regarding companies that are using customer service as a differentiator, this time around they analyze some Entrepreneurs which are not only using it that way but that are building entire businesses around the concept of good service.

The funny thing is that none of the things being done by these companies is radically different from what some companies would even consider ‘common sense’, yet the advent of the new Web 2.0 world has chance the customer-company relationship in radical ways…

We’ve all seen (or heard) those recordings of dissatisfied customers interacting with companies that are then posted to various websites and blogs. In the article, one customer took even an extra step and decided to visit a company’s headquarters armed with a video camera à la 60-minutes, interviewing employees about the delay in her product.

Therefore, now that customers are taking a much more active role in expressing their feelings and frustrations with poor customer service (including the 15% of ticked-off customers entertaining fantasies of revenge), what should be the role of the phone? Should it simply shield and route customer’s complains in an efficient matter, or should it be taken to the next step and play a critical role in providing a service and satisfying a caller need? In particular, what role should phone automation and self-service play in a small business concept where competing with larger rivals solely on price and selection is a losing game yet most haven’t started to explore its use and benefits outside of voice mail or maybe an auto attendant?

I find it very encouraging that the article doesn’t simply dismiss automation as an anti-human attitude nor assumes that self-service is a synonym of poor customer experience. Instead, they suggest involving customers early on in the design of the product or service (which they refer to as user-innovation).

Furthermore, they even offer a quiz to assess your level of customer service where 30% of the questions have a direct relationship with services offered over the phone:

1) Does your website include a customer-service phone number? - (which can also be applied to whether you make it easy for a caller to get a hold of an operator) Here they point out that not including one gives the impression that you’re deliberately trying to make it difficult for them to reach you with problems, and that by adding it your customer-retention rate is likely to improve.

2) Is the technology you’re using to help with customer service (phone systems, software) modified to your specific needs? - (which can also be applied to whether you’re localizing them to other languages instead of simply translating them) Here they point out that you gain an advantage over one-size-fits all rivals and which I would consider to be the first step towards personalization and data-driven design.

3) Have you outsourced any customer service functions? - (which I would argue includes ‘outsourcing’ your most common functions to a self-service system, as well as ‘outsourcing’ your system user interface design to professionals Here they point out that for growing firms, hiring experts frees your team to do other important tasks such as selling or improving your product.

I leave you with a final quote:

“Sounds so simple. It almost makes you forget that becoming a company known for great service takes planning, persistence, and at the end of the day, the hard-earned goodwill of your customer.”

I recently read the story about how Netflix is using its call center agents as a strategic weapon and differentiator against their competition - particularly Blockbuster.

Could this finally indicate a tipping point in the way corporations view their “Cost Centers” “Call Center”? Not only are they eliminating the use of email to manage customer service inquiries but they are also implementing things no one would even consider in a customer service environment - live 24 hour service, prominently displaying their toll-free number on their Web site, removing requirements on call durations and empowering agent to make decisions that could make customers happy.

In my opinion, the next move in their strategy should be the use of automation but not as a replacement of that live interaction (which is what the email strategy was all about) but rather as a filter to handle the simple calls they seem to receive (for example, rearranging titles in the queue) so that more complicated and valuable calls (such as those dealing with possible cancellations) can be handled personally by agents.

Furthermore, their decision to set up the call center in the United States instead of outsourcing it to other countries seems to follow a recent trend in which callers are so disappointed by the service provided by non-native English speakers, that they’ve reported they would prefer automation than outsourced live agents.

Finally, one more interesting point in the article is how they decided to set up the call center in Portland instead of other cities where the costs would’ve been lower… simply because of the standard “politeness and empathy” that Oregonians show on their daily interaction with each other. Anyone know about any commercial “personas” from that area?

A common problem we always face is how to deal with Menu Choices… How many menus do I need? In which order should they be presented? Are the labels I’m using clear? Should I concentrate on actions callers can perform or objects they are looking for?

In particular, one that’s pretty hard to solve is the number of choices that should be offered at any time. Some developers stick to certain Human-factor derived rules such as the “5 choices maximum”. Others prefer to split them into layers so that you only offer two or three at a time, followed by the familiar “more choices” menu which then takes you to a second (or even third) set of choices. At any rate, you’ll notice there’s a common theme among all these choices: “How can I add more choices without hurting my callers too much?” (even if we don’t like to accept that’s what’s going on)

But a very intriguing question I normally have when adding a new choice is: “Are we adding more than we’re subtracting?”

It was interesting to see I’m not the only one with these types of questions. Gerry McGovern recently shared similar concerns in relationship with the internet and web applications. We are very familiar with this concept, particularly every time we ‘upgrade’ our computers or a particular application software - we know where things are, we know how to get what we want out of them, and then once we move up to an upgrade version, chances are we’re going to be welcomed by a new myriad of choices, different menus, and sometimes even different terminology for the same concepts we were already familiar with. Taken to the extreme, we run into situations like the one MS Office 2007 users are facing where interfaces are so different than it requires users to learn the mental model of the developer.

Now, taking that back to our VUI world, I’ll take one of McGovern’s examples which I think helps answer the question about the real value a choice adds.

If we were to have 100 units of “attention” we could use and we listen to 5 menu choices, it means we can give 20 units to each choice. If we were to add a new option, it would be like taking 4 units away from each of the other choices, or else you force the caller to spend more time processing the information and increasing the likelihood of them making a mistake or running into an error.

In other words, “Every time you add, you subtract attention.” says McGovern. And I’ve seen that in action both in production systems and in Usability tests: when menu choices exceed the attention capacity of a caller, there’s a point where they simply stop listening or give up.

Unfortunately, businesses don’t think that way (which make our job harder, but at the same time more important). For them, if they have 4 choices covering 80% of the calls (let’s say that gives them a value of 80, so 20 points each), and we add a fifth option that has an intrinsic value of 5 (lets assume it’s the reason for another 5% of the calls), they would argue we added value to the solution, which went up from having a value of 80 to 85.

However, what happens if the caller is looking for one of the original 4 choices and becomes distracted or confused by the new one? That could cause them to choose the wrong one, to choose more than one or to mix-and-match the choices which would leave us with an ambiguous result. So going back to our example that would mean that we would get the value of 5, but in return we lost the 20 we would have gained if they had chosen one of the original menu choices. And not only that, but the likelihood of them having to find a way to go back, running into errors or getting transferred just went up because they would not find what they were looking for.

Bottom line, any choice should add value to the caller and not waste their time. “Value IS what the impatient caller values.”

NPR has a very interesting that explores how human behavior isn’t limited to real world interactions but actually extends to others types of interactions, including virtual worlds such as Second Life.

Which makes me wonder… if it’s in our nature to balance things such as personal distance and eye contact in both the real and virtual world, what other ‘rules’ are we bringing in into our day to day interactions with the phone?

I know similar topics have been discussed previously in articles and books such as Clifford Nass’ “The Media Equation” , but it was fascinating to me to realize that those same behaviors aren’t exclusive to people-to-computer interactions but that also affect virtual representations of ourselves.

This of course explains why callers sometimes have such gut reactions to some of the designs and interactions out there - reactions that are hardwired in their systems or have been socially learned. And why when we violate some of those interaction conventions and real-world rules, it makes it psychologically uncomfortable for our callers.

Let’s just keep that in mind (and let’s remind our customers) the next time we model systems around real-world interactions.

In most conferences, events and training classes, one common argument is that Self-Service Systems and IVR would be much better if we as an industry were able to craft a set of best practices everyone would follow.

In fact, the “GetHuman” movement and its standard is an attempt to dictate how customer service phone systems and support should work.

I think we all agree on this, but I always like to hear other opinions about similar topics, I found an intriguing response in Shaun Smith’s entry on Best Practices and Customer Experience.

He points out that even though we always look at those companies that have great service and provide great experiences (Disney, Southwest Airlines, Ritz-Carlton) in an attempt to learn how they do it so we can do it too, that ‘me too’ strategy is pretty dangerous.

And I’ll argue that the same danger can be present in our industry and in VUI Design in general.

Think about it. When a new customer engages us into creating a new self-service solution, one of the main business drivers is to differentiate from the competition. “Strategy is about making a choice; of what to do, but event more importantly, what not to do. To attempt to copy other organizations runs the risk of your being second rate, at best and totally inappropriate at worst.”

If you look at the last great VUI design you came across, the one that left a memorable experience that maybe even made you recommend it to someone else, chances are it belonged to an organization that has a strong brand, offers distinctive experiences, attract enthusiastic users, and… has their own unique way of doing things.

These companies found that their approach to business is not the norm, they do unusual things that defy conventional wisdom.

I think the secret is that they didn’t focus on complying with certain standards or best practices, but they rather focused on differentiation and meeting the needs of their users (customers). Some CEO’s even said their success started the day they stopped following the market leader and started following their customers.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to think about good VUI design in terms on how well it creates value for our users, on how it ensures that callers are successful, and not on how many multi-slot entries we have, on how clever our menu choices seem to be, or on how easy it is to talk to someone (when in fact, sometimes that’s not what our callers want)?

How many times have we heard that we should focus on our users (customers), that systems should be easy to navigate and callers should be able to find what they are looking for… as long as we include the things a current system is doing, what the website offers, and what the marketing department wants to let caller know the company offers as well.

Sounds familiar?

It is the continuous battle between companies’ interests and serving the customer. Between more features and improving the basics. Between simplicity and complexity.

The argument of course is that with more companies offering some sort of self-service solution, most companies believe the only way to differentiate themselves is to throw in more features/services/products than the competition. But then reality kicks in when those callers attempt to use the system…

Furthermore, as Gerry McGovern points out, there are a lot of pressures to create a complex system. “Designers like a complex challenge, complicated technology keeps
IT busy, and your boss may be impressed with all this extra smart stuff. The initial impression of customers might even be that they love these clever, cool features.”

On top of that, we have the user. We are all users of something, right? And if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll find that the last time you purchased something (new cell phone, plasma TV, car, etc.), chances are you found yourself comparing ‘features’ side-by-side to help you decide which one to pick (and no, I wasn’t standing behind you

But then, once you had a chance to use that product, weren’t you satisfied with the simpler version, the one that worked out of the box, the one that didn’t need a PhD to turn it on?

And we are not alone in this. According to a study released by Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, it’s an effect called “Feature Fatigue” in which consumers/users first “give more weight to a product’s capability benefits and less weight to a product’s usability before they use the product than after they use the product-despite the fact that a product’s usability strongly influences their satisfaction with the product.”

So how do you deal with a user that claims to want more simplicity, yes it sold on more complexity?

I would say the real question should be: “Do you want to be a one-time wonder, or would you rather be the one that gains market share and consistently and systematically deliver a good experience that makes happy and returning users?”

VUI Designers need to balance first impressions against long-term satisfaction. Even though simplicity is hard to sell in the short-term, it is in the use of that thing that simplicity shines. Tools such as Usability and Live Call Monitoring allow us to show our designs in action and should be enough to convince higher management to let us focus more on improving the basics, which will result in a better investment of time and money for everyone.

While browsing the web and reading articles about Customer Experience and their role in Customer Satisfaction, I ran across a great review by Dale Wolf where the relationship between a music band and their success when looking at their “relentless pursuit of the overall customer experience” made me realize that in a sense, us VUI designers play a significant rule in the Customer Experience field.

Even though Customer Experience is a topic that has been discussed quite a bit, I think the questions he presented are the same questions we should be asking ourselves and our customers in every engagement (adapted to our context of course):

1. How unique is the service we are designing?
2. Is our design filling a niche or are we attempting to satisfy everyone? (E.g. novice vs. expert users; potential customers vs. account managers)
3. Would our users rate our designs (and the actual delivery) as a ‘virtuoso’ in our field?
4. Will our designs make the companies implementing them to be considered a cut above the rest of the field?
5. Are you like a breath of fresh air to our users?
6. Will our users feel compelled to help these same companies in their marketing efforts by happily spreading the word and providing unlimited referrals? (that’s right, Cost Center mentality should be replaced by a Customer Experience-driven mentality)
7. Are our users satisfied???