Amazon Alexa is a voice-controlled application that is rapidly gaining popularity. We examined user interactions with this technology, and focused on the types of tasks requested of Alexa, the variables that affect user behaviors with Alexa, and Alexa’s alternatives. The data about Alexa usage were collected from 19 participants via the online questionnaire and diary methods over the course of several days. The results indicate that across all age groups, Alexa was primarily used for checking weather forecasts, playing music, and controlling other devices. Several participants reported using Apple Siri and Google Now applications in addition to Alexa for similar purposes except for controlling other devices. Alexa uses over the weekends were more frequent than on weekdays, but its overall usage tended to decrease over time. The users reported being satisfied with Alexa even when it did not produce sought information, suggesting that the interaction experience is more important to the users than the interaction output. More work is required to understand whether users treat Alexa and similar voice-controlled applications as primarily a traditional information retrieval system, a casual leisure system, a control interface for smart home devices, or, simply, a new toy.
BeckmanKBennettSLockyerL (2014) Understanding students’ use and value of technology for learning. Learning, Media and Technology39(3): 346–367.
5.
BhattacherjeeAPremkumarG (2004) Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly28(2): 229–254.
6.
BilalDKirbyJ (2002) Differences and similarities in information seeking: Children and adults as web users. Information Processing & Management38(5): 649–670.
7.
CanbekNGMutluME (2016) On the track of artificial intelligence: Learning with intelligent personal assistants. Journal of Human Sciences13(1): 592–601.
EaswaraMAVuKPL (2015) Privacy concerns for use of voice activated personal assistant in the public space. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction31(4): 307–335.
14.
EfthymiouCHalveyM (2016) Evaluating the social acceptability of voice based smartwatch search. In: MaS, et al. (eds) Information Retrieval Technology. AIRS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceVol 9994. New York: Springer, pp. 267–278.
15.
ElbeshausenSMandlTWomser-HackerC (2015) Collaborative information seeking in the context of leisure and work task situations: A comparison of three empirical studies. In: HansenPShahCKlasCP (eds) Collaborative Information Seeking: Best Practices, New Domains and New Thoughts. New York: Springer, pp. 73–98.
16.
ElsweilerDWilsonMLKirkegaard LunnB (2011) Understanding casual-leisure information behaviour. In: SpinkAHeinströmJ (eds) New Directions in Information Behavior. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 211–241.
17.
GrausDBennettPNWhiteRW, et al. (2016) Analyzing and predicting task reminders. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference on user modeling adaptation and personalization (UMAP ’16), Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 13–17 July 2016, pp. 7–15. New York: ACM.
IidaMShroutPELaurenceauJP, et al. (2012) Using diary methods in psychological research. In: CooperH, et al. (eds) APA Handbook of Research Methodology in Psychology. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: APA Books, pp. 277–305.
20.
JiangJAwadallahAHJonesR, et al. (2015) Automatic online evaluation of intelligent assistants. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’15), Florence, Italy, 18–22 May 2015, pp. 506–516.
KiselevaJWilliamsKAwadallahAH, et al. (2016a) Predicting user satisfaction with intelligent assistants. In: Proceedings of the 39th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR ’16), Pisa, Italy, 17–21 July 2016, pp. 45–54. New York: ACM.
23.
KiselevaJWilliamsKJiangJ, et al. (2016b) Understanding user satisfaction with intelligent assistants. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on human information interaction and retrieval (CHIIR ’16), Carrboro, NC, USA, 13–17 March 2016, pp. 121–130. New York: ACM.
24.
KuhlthauCC (1991) Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science42(5): 361–371.
25.
LeckieGJPettigrewKESylvainC (1996) Modeling the information seeking of professionals: A general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy66(2): 161–193.
LopatovskaIFentonMCampotS (2012) Examining preferences for search engines and their effects on information behavior. In: Proceedings of the 75th annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 26–30 October 2012, Baltimore, MD, USA. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/meet.14504901110/pdf (accessed 13 February 2017).
28.
LugerESellenA (2016) Like having a really bad PA: The gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016, pp. 5286–5297. New York: ACM.
MorrisMGTurnerJM (2001) Assessing users’ subjective quality of experience with the world wide web: An exploratory examination of temporal changes in technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies54(6): 877–901.
O’BrienHLTomsEG (2008) What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(6): 938–955.
PorcheronMFischerJESharplesS (2016) Using mobile phones in pub talk. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing, San Francisco, CA, 27 February–2 March 2016, pp. 1649–1661. New York: ACM.
38.
PorcheronMFischerJESharplesS (2017) ‘Do animals have accents?’: Talking with agents in multi-party conversation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. Portland, OR, USA, 25 February–1 March 2017, pp. 207–210. New York: ACM.
UrquhartCLightAThomasR, et al. (2003) Critical incident technique and explicitation interviewing in studies of information behaviour. Library & Information Science Research25(1): 63–88.
