User Experiences with Personal Intelligent Agents: A Sensory, Physical, Functional and Cognitive Affordances View

The interaction between users and their personal intelligent agents like Apple's Siri, Amazon's Alexa, and Google Home is getting more personal, therefore raising questions about the ethical obligations of technology companies. Thus, a thorough examination of users' experiences with these agents is indispensable. After all, it is merely the interaction between the human actor and the system that enables the artifact to be of consequence. This study uses an affordances lens to explore such use patterns. We qualitatively analyze 232 interviews with personal intelligent agents' users. The results reveal sensory affordances that support functional ones (hands-free and eyes-free use, familiarity and emotional connection) and dominate the users' experience with these agents. We also detect cognitive (personalization and learning from interactions), functional (speedy assistance and usefulness), and physical affordances (potential improvement). These findings have implications for researchers and practitioners alike seeking to understand usability patterns and challenges resulting from the integration of Apple's Siri, Google Now, Amazon's Echo and Microsoft's Cortana into users' everyday life.

[1]  Raymond Kurzweil,et al.  Age of intelligent machines , 1990 .

[2]  Quynh N. Nguyen,et al.  AI capabilities and user experiences: a comparative study of user reviews for assistant and non-assistant mobile apps , 2017, AMCIS.

[3]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Information Technology, Materiality, and Organizational Change: A Professional Odyssey , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Intelligent agents: theory and practice , 1995, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[5]  Bart P. Knijnenburg,et al.  Inferring Capabilities of Intelligent Agents , 2014 .

[6]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Agent-Oriented Programming , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Affordance, conventions, and design , 1999, INTR.

[8]  Raquel Benbunan-Fich,et al.  Usability of Wearables without Affordances , 2017, AMCIS.

[9]  Marti A. Hearst,et al.  The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces , 2001, CSUR.

[10]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[11]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Explanations From Intelligent Systems: Theoretical Foundations and Implications for Practice , 1999, MIS Q..

[12]  福井 孝宗,et al.  書評 Sherry Turkle "Alone Together : Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other" , 2012 .

[13]  H. Willmott,et al.  Qualitative research in business and management , 2014 .

[14]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies , 2011, MIS Q..

[15]  Ulrike Schultze,et al.  Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: a review , 2010, J. Inf. Technol..

[16]  Daniel L. Sherrell,et al.  Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 1999 .

[17]  Jan Zibuschka,et al.  About User Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Secure and Privacy Protective Ubiquitous Personal Assistant , 2017, ECIS.

[18]  H. Rex Hartson,et al.  Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design , 2003, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[19]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Affordances in HCI: toward a mediated action perspective , 2012, CHI.

[20]  Daniel Dajun Zeng AI Ethics: Science Fiction Meets Technological Reality , 2015, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[21]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Intelligent agents: theory and practice The Knowledge Engineering Review , 1995 .

[22]  S. Greenberg,et al.  The Psychology of Everyday Things , 2012 .

[23]  Sherry Turkle,et al.  Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other , 2011 .

[24]  Guy Paré,et al.  Investigating Information Systems with Positivist Case Research , 2004, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Luc Steels,et al.  The artificial life route to artificial intelligence : building embodied , 1995 .

[26]  J. Cheung Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other , 2013 .

[27]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[28]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[29]  Adam S. Miner,et al.  Smartphone-Based Conversational Agents and Responses to Questions About Mental Health, Interpersonal Violence, and Physical Health. , 2016, JAMA internal medicine.

[30]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Research Commentary: An Agenda for Information Technology Research in Heterogeneous and Distributed Environments , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[31]  Henri Barki,et al.  Functional Affordance Archetypes: a New Perspective for Examining the Impact of IT Use on Desirable Outcomes , 2013, ICIS.

[32]  Karen Stendal,et al.  Analyzing the Concept of Affordances in Information Systems , 2016, 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

[33]  Alan MacLennan,et al.  The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building embodied, situated agents , 1996 .

[34]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A New Look at DeSanctis and Poole's Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[35]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Embodied Conversational Agent-Based Kiosk for Automated Interviewing , 2011, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Laura Johnson,et al.  How Many Interviews Are Enough? , 2006 .

[37]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Evolving Work Routines: Adaptive Routinization of Information Technology in Healthcare , 2011, Inf. Syst. Res..

[38]  M. D. Myers,et al.  Qualitative Research in Business & Management , 2008 .

[39]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.