"OK, talk to you later!”: Practices of Ending and Switching Tasks in Interactions With an In-Car Voice Enabled Interface

• In Event: Employing Local Strategies Research to Understand the User Experience (UX)

Abstract

In this pre-recorded presentation, we will hear an analysis about error sequences in interactions with an in-car speech enabled system. This system allows users to make phone calls, listen to the radio, or listen to a music collection. These sequences are drawn from driving sessions with 26 participants, during which drivers interacted with the in-car speech system. The sessions were on average one and a half to two hours long and took place in western Massachusetts on primarily rural roads, as well as some suburban and urban roads. We present excerpts from recordings of these interactions that represent errors that occurred when participants and the in-car system were interacting. We adopt a cultural discourse theory perspective in order to identify assumptions about interactional partners that seem to be made by both the participants as well as by system designers.
This analysis will focus in particular on error sequences that happen when drivers ended an interaction with the system. Instances demonstrate that drivers used both a voice command, such as "end radio" or "stop music," and the touch screen to end an interaction. There were also some participants who said “back,” “out,” or “home” when they wanted to end an interaction, and many participants who never ended an interaction at all, but rather switched to another task without ending the first. The errors in these sequences suggest that participants are coming to the interaction with assumptions regarding the ability of the system to listen continuously to them. There also seem to be differences between those participants who end each interaction versus those participants who perhaps view the communication event with the system as part of a longer communication situation that does not necessarily contain distinct ending points. These assumptions have design implications since there could be adjustments made to accommodate those participants who would prefer distinct endings versus those who do not always want to end tasks.

Authors

• Elizabeth Molina-Markham, Dartmouth College

• Brion van Over, U of Massachusetts

• Sunny Lie, St Cloud State U

• Donal Carbaugh, U of Massachusetts