Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
specific to me and when I see it in hindsight I don't know what it
needed it for (.) so it was doing it just to learn something about me (.)
I guess I don't know why, but yeah”—CT). Surprisingly, the subjects
presented here consistently provide the requested information and
thereby bow to the system.
Strategies in contact with the counterpart/reactions of the user
Users “work for adaptation and personalization” of the system. They
do not seem to experience the system as adaptive, but instead they try
to adapt to the system themselves (“when I was asked to introduce
myself (.) somehow I was already thinking (.) introducing ok what
can be interesting for a computer program and then I told it my age
what I do where I live and then I was waiting for what else it wanted
to hear (.) and then I was asked to say where I live where I work and
something about my family (.) so at first it rattled off everything and
I tried to keep that all in mind in order to work everything off so
to speak”—UK). They anticipate the system's aims and abilities and
attempt to find adequate strategies for his or her responses (“and also
being asked about these experiences that I was especially happy about
and those experiences I found especially annoying (.) at first I was
rummaging around for something to tell this machine that it might
understand, so to say”—UK). This adaptation and personalization
to the system takes cognitive effort, which causes the stress subjects
tolerated according to the objectives of establishing an interaction
with the system, to gratify its “requirements” and to get past feelings
of foreignness (“well it was a little bit like talking to someone who's
not German and just started to learn the language (.) it's really like,
yeah almost like an accent so to speak (.) you have to get used to it
first so after having heard the first words and adapting yourself to
talking to someone and then again so to speak needing twenty thirty
seconds to understand the one talking”—UK).
In the second part of our interview study, we conducted a detailed
analysis on how users experience the affect-oriented system intervention
given within a critical dialog situation and what characteristics, aims,
etc. they ascribe towards the system in this specifi c situation. Five main
themes arose (Wahl et al. (in press): First, emotional support versus
intention to mislead; second, the opportunity to refl ect as support
and demand for self-criticism; third, wish for assuming responsibility
and relief; fourth, suspicion and skepticism concerning privacy; fi fth,
unexpected system features. In the following, each theme is explained
in detail and is illustrated by the utterances of subjects during the
interviews.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search