FROM DATA TO DESIGN

Spoken dialog systems have been a holy grail of computer science since Turing devised his test for intelligence, and an icon of science fiction from well before that. Although there are machines you can talk to – interactive voice response (IVR) systems which answer phones, voice command systems in cars, and the Furby toy come to mind – holding a conversation with a machine, spoken or typed, is still highly problematic. It seems there is something fundamental we don't understand about the way humans use language. One popular approach is to ignore our ignorance and assume that machines can figure it out for themselves using machine learning or some form of statistical modeling of a corpus of text. Corpus analysis, however, like archeology, attempts to understand human action by looking at what we leave behind. Instead we take a software agents approach and model the language production process. The SERA project is our latest effort looking at what other disciplines can tell us about language use in context. We find that, naturally, published work focuses on the interesting while the engineering challenge is to capture the essential but often mundane. This paper proposes a narrative approach based on Vygotsky's view of psychology that captures “the big picture”. The paper finishes with an outline for a tool that merges the functionality of more conventional annotation tools with that of existing scripting environments for conversational agents.

[1]  D O'Hare,et al.  Cognitive task analyses for decision centred design and training. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[2]  Sabine Payr,et al.  Socially Situated Affective Systems , 2011 .

[3]  S. Brison The Intentional Stance , 1989 .

[4]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[5]  W. Frawley Mind as Action , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Peter Wallis,et al.  Dialogue Modelling for a Conversational Agent , 2001, Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[7]  Brenda Laurel,et al.  Computers as theatre , 1991 .

[8]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Stupid computer! Abuse and social identities , 2005 .

[9]  D. Dennett The Intentional Stance. , 1987 .

[10]  Peter Abell,et al.  A Case for Cases , 2009 .

[11]  Johan Bos,et al.  A model of dia-logue moves and information state revision , 1999 .

[12]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences , 1980 .

[13]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction , 2002 .

[14]  R. Hutton,et al.  Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): a practitioner's toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[15]  Sarah M. Creer,et al.  DESCRIBING THE INTERACTIVE DOMESTIC ROBOT SETUP FOR THE SERA PROJECT , 2011, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[16]  Michael J. Reddy Metaphor and Thought: The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language , 1993 .

[17]  Harvey Sacks,et al.  Lectures on Conversation , 1995 .

[18]  David J. Israel,et al.  Plans and resource‐bounded practical reasoning , 1988, Comput. Intell..

[19]  Gregory A. Sanders,et al.  Darpa Communicator Evaluation: Progress from 2000 to 2001 Darpa Communicator Evaluation: Progress from 2000 to 2001 , 2022 .

[20]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[21]  Peter Abell,et al.  The role of rational choice and narrative action theories in sociological theory The legacy of Coleman's Foundations , 2003 .

[22]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  The unfriendly user: exploring social reactions to chatterbots , 2001 .

[23]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[24]  Peter Wallis Revisiting the DARPA communicator data using conversation analysis , 2008 .

[25]  H. Garfinkel Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[26]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .