Artificial intelligence (AI)-related technologies available to consumers have been rapidly advancing but without parallel insight into the social process of their design. Building AI tools to converse with humans and support our lives remains a significant challenge for which consistency and codified standards are lacking. Following a tradition in science and technology studies of shining light on design and technology development as negotiated cultural processes, this article presents findings from ongoing interviews and fieldwork exploring the collaboration between engineers and user experience (UX) designers collaborating on conversational AI systems. To balance ethnographic data from a Tokyo-based conversational AI startup, interviews (n = 20) also include an international sample of people working for and with the world's largest technology companies. I describe how usability determinations unfold through daily inter-office negotiation and suggest that UX professionals in AI production primarily engage in two kinds of dialog: The first is human-centric and focused on the emotional needs and material conditions of human-computer interaction. The second is a technical dialog grounded in the parameters of what code “can do” (or what an individual engineer understands to be possible) and bridges the humanistic and technical perspectives necessary for AI system design.
Al-AwarJananChapanisAlphonseFordW. Randolph. 1981. “Tutorials for the First-Time Computer User.” IEEE Transactions on Professional CommunicationPC-24 (1): 30–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1981.6447820 .
2.
BeattieGeoffrey W. 1981. “Interruption in Conversational Interaction, and Its Relation to the Sex and Status of the Interactants.” Linguistics19 (1-2): 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1981.19.1-2.15.
3.
BlackwellAlan F. 2006. “The Reification of Metaphor as a Design Tool.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction13 (4): 490–530. https://doi.org/10.1145/1188816.1188820.
4.
BrandtAdamHazelSpencerMckinnonRorySideridouKleopatraTindaleJoeVentouraNikoletta. 2023. “From Writing Dialogue to Designing Conversation: Considering the Potential of Conversation Analysis for Voice User Interfaces.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, 1-6. Eindhoven, Netherlands. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571884.3603758.
5.
BurkePeter. 1993. The Art of Conversation in Early Modern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6.
CallonMichel. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by LawJohn, 196–223. London: Routledge.
7.
Costanza-ChockSasha. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
CrawfordKate. 2016. "Artificial Intelligence’s White Guy Problem.” The New York Times, 25 June. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html.
9.
DeibelDianaEvanhoeRebecca. 2021. Conversations with Things: UX Design for Chat and Voice. New York: Rosenfeld.
10.
EnfieldN. J.2017. How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation. New York: Basic Books.
11.
ForsytheDiana E. 2002. Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
FuwaRaizo. 2019. “Shuyō Terebikyoku no Fukusū-Toshi ni Wataru Shichō-Ritsu Suii o Saguru (Searching for Changes in Viewer Ratings of Major TV Stations over Multiple Years).” Yahoo.jp. Last Modified 20 May. Accessed 15 December. https://news.yahoo.co.jp/byline/fuwaraizo/20190520-00126604/.
13.
GouldJohn D.LewisClayton. 1985. “Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What Designers Think.” Communications of the ACM: Human Aspects of Computing28 (3): 300–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3166.3170.
14.
GrayColin M.KouYuboBattlesBryanHoggattJosephToombsAustin L.. 2018. “The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design.” In Proceedings of the 2018 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paper 534, 1–14. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108
HelmreichStefan. 2001. “After Culture: Reflections on the Apparition of Anthropology in Artificial Life, a Science of Simulation.” Cultural Anthropology16 (4): 612–27. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2001.16.4.612.
18.
HelveyW.MartellC.PetersJ.RosenthalG.BenjaminF.AlbrightG.. 1964. Biomedical and Human Factors Requirements for a Manned Earth Orbiting Station. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Farmingdale, NY: Republic Aviation Corporation. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19640016036.
19.
HoffmanSteve G. 2017. “Managing Ambiguities at the Edge of Knowledge: Research Strategy and Artificial Intelligence Labs in an Era of Academic Capitalism.” Science, Technology, & Human Values42 (4): 703–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916687038.
20.
KatagiriYasuhiroNassCliffordTakeuchiYugo. 2001. “Cross-Cultural Studies of the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm: The Case of Reciprocity.” Usability Evaluation and Interface Design: Cognitive Engineering, Intelligent Agents, and Virtual Reality, 1558–62.
21.
KouYuboGrayColin M.. 2019. A Practice-Led Account of the Conceptual Evolution of UX Knowledge.” In The 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paper No.: 49, Pages 1-13, Glasgow, Scotland, May 4-9. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300279.
22.
KudinaOlya. 2021. “‘Alexa, Who Am I?’ Voice Assistants and Hermeneutic Lemniscate as the Technologically Mediated Sense-Making.” Human Studies233–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-021-09572-9.
23.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
LatourBrunoWoolgarSteve. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2013 ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
LiHan Z. 2001. “Cooperative and Intrusive Interruptions in Inter-and Intracultural Dyadic Discourse.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology20 (3): 259–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X01020003001.
MohamedShakirPngMarie-ThereseIsaacWilliam. 2020. “Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence.” Philosophy & Technology33 (4): 659–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8.
28.
NassCliffordSteuerJonathanTauberEllen R.. 1994. “Computers Are Social Actors.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, April 24–28. 72–78. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703.
29.
NataleSimone. 2018. “If Software is Narrative: Joseph Weizenbaum, Artificial Intelligence and the Biographies of Eliza.” New Media & Society21 (3): 712–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818804980.
30.
NielsenJakob, ed. 1990. Designing User Interfaces for International Use. Vol. 13, Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics. West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Publishing.
O’ConaillBridFrohlichDavid. 1995. “Timespace in the Workplace: Dealing with Interruptions.” CHI ‘95, May 7-11.
39.
OudshoornNellyRommesElsStienstraMarcelle. 2004. ““Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies.” Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (1): 30–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259190.
40.
PetersJohn Durham. 1999. Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
PinkSarahForsVaikeLanzeniDeboraDuqueMelisaSumartojoShantiStrengersYolande. 2022. Design Ethnography: Research, Responsibilities, and Futures. New York: Routledge.
43.
ReTechMedia. 2023. “Sumātosupīkā ga Fukyū Shinai Riyū o Kaisetsu. Nihon to Sekai no Fukyū-Ritsu Mo Shōkai (Explaining Why Smart Speakers Are Not Widespread: Introducing Penetration Rates in Japan and the World).” ReTech Media. Space-Core.jp. Last Modified 27 December. Accessed 12 July. https://space-core.jp/media/12179/#:∼:text=%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%9B%BD%E5%86%85%E3%81%A7%E3%81%AE%E6%99%AE%E5%8F%8A,%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E4%BA%88%E6%B8%AC%E3%81%95%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%99%E3%80%82.
44.
RodwellElizabeth. 2024. “Hyped but Invisible: Good UX and Good Gender Practices in and out of the Conversational AI Sandbox.” Practicing Anthropology46 (1): 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08884552.2024.2305560.
45.
RosentalClaude. 2003. “Certifying Knowledge: The Sociology of a Logical Theorem in Artificial Intelligence.” American Sociological Review68 (4): 623–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800407.
46.
SalterAnastasia. 2017. “Code Before Content? Brogrammer Culture in Games and Electronic Literature.” Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures17, https://doi.org/10.20415/hyp/017.e02.
SmithDavid CanfieldIrbyCharlesKimballRalphVerplankBill. 1982. “Designing the Star User Interface.” Byte Publications24 (4): 242–82.
51.
SpoolJaredScanlonTaraSnyderCarolynSchroederWillDeAngeloTerri. 1997. Web Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide. New York: Morgan Kaufmann.
52.
StrengersYolandeKennedyJenny. 2020. The Smart Wife: Why Siri, Alexa, and Other Smart Home Devices Need a Feminist Reboot. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
53.
SuchmanLucy. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SuchmanLucyBlombergJeanetteOrrJulian E.TriggRandall. 1999. “Reconstructing Technologies as Social Practice.” American Behavioral Scientist43 (3): 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955335.
55.
SwitzkyLawrence. 2020. “Eliza Effects: Pygmalion and the Early Development of Artificial Intelligence.” Shaw40 (1): 50. https://doi.org/10.5325/shaw.40.1.0050.
56.
TabassumMadihaKosińskiTomaszFrikAlisaMalkinNathanWijesekeraPrimalEgelmanSergeLipfordHeather Richter. 2019. “Investigating Users’ Preferences and Expectations for Always-Listening Voice Assistants.” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies3 (4): Article 153. https://doi.org/10.1145/3369807.
WallaceRichard. 2009. “The Anatomy of A.L.I.C.E.” In Parsing the Turing Test, 181–210. New York: Springer.
59.
WeizenbaumJoseph. 1976. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
60.
WestSarah MeyersWhittakerMeredithCrawfordKate. 2019. Discriminating Systems: Gender, Race and Power in AI. New York, NY:AI Now Institute, New York University. https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.html.
61.
WickensChristopher D.HeltonWilliam S.HollandsJustin G.BanburySimon. 2021. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 5th ed. London and New York: Routledge.
62.
YangMistiSalzanoMatthew. 2023. Weizenbaum’s Performance and Theory Modes: Lessons for Critical Engagement with Large Language Model Chatbots.” In Paper Presented at Association of Internet Researchers Conference (AoIR ‘23), Philadelphia, 19 October 2023. https://aoir.org/aoir2023/
63.
YlipulliJohannaLuusuaAale. 2019. “Broadening Horizons of Design Ethics? Importing Concepts from Applied Anthropology.” Nordes: Nordic Design Research8: 1–5.
64.
ZimmermanDon HWestCandace. 1975. “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.” In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by ThorneBarrieHenleyNancy, 105–129. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
65.
ŻurAgnieszka. 2022. “Agency Theory and the Digital Economy.” In The Digital Economy and the European Labour Market, edited by UrbaniecMaria, 120–32. New York: Routledge.
