Voice User Interface Design VUI

I was reading an article this morning about things we can learn from Social Design. In particular, what I liked was the fact that they weren’t trying to analyze the typical examples – Facebook, YouTube, SecondLife, etc. – but rather learn from the mistakes of other less-known ventures.

In particular, there were four “Lessons Learned” that Joshua points out that I think apply to Voice User Interface design and any type of self-service application:

1. Not attracting enough users (aka. not retaining enough users or having them choose other service alternatives such as a live agent)

If you design and develop a great self-service system and nobody uses it (or opts out), you have this problem. What’s even worse, some companies think that they way to solve it is to make it hard for callers to talk to an operator, add more options, or spend more money marketing the system, which is the wrong move. Good applications (like social sites) build value one user at a time. As Joshua points out, “If one user finds value, then they’re much more likely to tell others or invite their friends.” Therefore, one-size fits all systems aren’t the answer. Instead designers (and businesses) should focus on succeeding on a smaller level, focusing on individual users and their needs. One very interesting point I loved was “One strategy in particular is to design for your friends, get the system working well for them, and then release it to a broader audience”. What would happen if we started to design our apps for our friends and families instead?

2. Trying to do many things at once

Too many times I’ve heard the casual customer request: “The system should provide the same functionality the old system had, plus the new features the website offers, along with some new initiatives we’ve been thinking about.” (I can already feel the goose bumps). Since any new design (or redesign) is considered an opportunity to ‘upgrade’, it is hard for businesses to understand that ‘enhancing’ it not necessarily a function of adding things but maybe removing things. Unless you focus on those things that customers really care about and need to be successful, callers will continue to hate the systems we design – no matter how ‘useful’ we consider them to be.

3. Lack of Sustained Execution

Most systems tend to be developed, rolled out, and then become static pieces of art – aside from the casual updates (e.g. changes in the hours of operation) or sporadic tunings (which tend to happen once a year). On the other hand, what makes Social Web applications so successful is the fact that they are in a continuous state of evolution, they keep changing and never stop getting better. As Joshua points out, “It’s too easy to fall into the desktop software mindset of build, release, and wait for the next cycle.”, but I truly agree with his comment about this being a mindset issue – “If you see it as an opportunity for continual improvement, your outlook will be more positive.”

4. Pointing the Finger when Missteps Happen

It may not be that apparent considering the current state of the speech industry, but reactions such as the SNL sketches, the Citi Simplicity campaign (”press 0″) and the GetHuman movements, provide hints that the consumers are starting to become much more vocal regarding their experiences and expectations regarding self-service ad automation in general. Therefore, we as “manager of these communities” must act accordingly, accept responsibility for our caller base and earn their trust and respect.

Any others I might have missed?

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)?