Adoption of intelligent personal assistants (IPA) is on the rise. Published studies on IPAs often focus on the analysis and critique of existing IPA features without understanding specific user needs that the technology aims to address. We present an exploratory study that gathered user recommendations for the design of their ideal IPA. The study relied on focus group and content analysis methods for data collection and analysis. Major themes in participants’ recommendations for IPA design were identified and included feature improvements (e.g. speech recognition, input/output modalities, device feedback); customizability and increased control over IPA features and functions; transparency and understanding of IPA hardware, software, and data management processes; personification; compatibility with third-party platforms; accessibility; and aesthetics. Many of these recommendations are rooted in basic user experience design principles and have been previously discussed in the context of PDAs (personal digital assistants) and other technology. Addressing these recommendations would advance IPA technology and improve user experiences with it.
BotsmanR (2017) Co-parenting with Alexa. The New York Times, 7October, SR4.
6.
BraggDBennettCReineckeK, et al. (2018) A large inclusive study of human listening rates. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’18), Montréal, Canada, 21–26 April 2018. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3173574.3174018.
CanbekNGMutluME (2016) On the track of artificial intelligence: Learning with intelligent personal assistants. Journal of Human Sciences13(1): 592–601.
CowanBRPantidiNCoyleD, et al. (2017) ‘What can I help you with?’: Infrequent users’ experiences of intelligent personal assistants. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (Mobile HCI ʼ17), Vienna, Austria, 4–7 September 2017. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3098279.3098539.
De VetJBuilV (1999) A personal digital assistant as an advanced remote control for audio/video equipment. In: Proceedings of the second workshop on human computer interaction with mobile devices (MobileHCI ’99), Edinburgh, UK, 31 August 1999, pp. 87–91. Available at: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/mobile99/posters/de_vet.pdf (accessed 1 August 2018).
DizonG (2017) Using intelligent personal assistants for second language learning: A case study of Alexa. TESOL Journal8(4): 811–830.
17.
Easwara MoorthyAVuK-PL (2015) Privacy concerns for use of voice activated personal assistant in the public space. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction31: 307–335.
18.
EfthymiouCHalveyM (2016) Evaluating the social acceptability of voice based smartwatch search. In: 12th Asia information retrieval societies conference, (AIRS 2016) (eds MaSWenJ-RLiuY, et al.), Beijing, China, 30 November–2 December 2016, pp. 267–278. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978–3–319–48051–0_20.
Flores LetelierMFSpinosaCCalderBJ (2000) Taking an expanded view of customers’ needs: Qualitative research for aiding innovation. Marketing Research12(4): 4–11.
21.
FreebergE (2013) The Age of Edison: Electric Light and the Invention of Modern America. New York: Penguin Press.
22.
GilmoreJHPineBJII (1997) The four faces of mass customization. Harvard Business Review75(1): 91–101.
23.
GrausDBennettPNWhiteRW, et al. (2016) Analyzing and predicting task reminders. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference on user modeling adaptation and personalization (UMAP ʼ16), Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 13–17 July 2016, pp. 7–15. New York: ACM. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2930238.2930239.
GuoFMetallinouAKhatriC, et al. (2017) Topic-based evaluation for conversational bots. In: 31st Conference on neural information processing systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA, 4–9 December 2017. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03622 (accessed 13 February 2018).
26.
HanSYangH (2018) Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: A parasocial relationship perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems118(3): 618–636.
27.
HastieHLiuXPatronP (2017) Trust triggers for multimodal command and control interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction (ICMI 2017), Glasgow, UK, 13–17 November 2017, pp.261–268. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3136755.3136764.
28.
HosethAMcClureM (2012) Perspectives on E-books from instructors and students in the social sciences. Reference & User Services Quarterly51(3): 278–288.
KiselevaJWilliamsKJiangJ, et al. (2016) Understanding user satisfaction with intelligent assistants. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on conference on human information interaction and retrieval (CHIIR ʼ16), Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 13–17 March 2016, pp. 121–130. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2854946.2854961.
LeiXTuG-HLiuAX, et al. (2017) The insecurity of home digital voice assistants - Amazon Alexa as a case study. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03327 (accessed 13 February 2018).
36.
LopatovskaIOropezaH (2018) User interactions with ‘Alexa’ in public academic space. In: Annual meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vancouver, Canada, 9–14 November 2018, pp. 309–318. Available at: https://irenelopatovska.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/asist18-alexa-in-public-02.pdf (accessed 14 November 2018).
37.
LopatovskaIWilliamsH (2018) Personification of the Amazon Alexa: BFF or a mindless companion? In: Proceedings of ACM CHIIR conference (CHIIR ’18), New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 11–15 March 2018. DOI: 10.1145/3176349.3176868.
38.
LopatovskaIRinkKKnightI, et al. (2018) Talk to me: Exploring interactions with the Amazon Alexa. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science. DOI: 10.1177/0961000618759414.
39.
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 (CHI ʼ16), San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016, pp.5286–5297. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2858036.2858288.
MooreRKLiHLiaoS-H (2016) Progress and prospects for spoken language technology: What ordinary people think. In: INTERSPEECH 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–12 September 2016, pp. 3007–3011. DOI: 10.21437/Interspeech.2016–874.
44.
MoriM (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy7(4): 33–35.
45.
MunteanuCIraniPOviattS, et al. (2017Designing speech, acoustic and multimodal interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ʼ17), Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017, pp. 601–608. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3027063.3027086.
OrehovačkiTGranićAKermekD (2013) Evaluating the perceived and estimated quality in use of Web 2.0 applications. Journal of Systems and Software86(12): 3039–3059.
48.
OrehovačkiTBabićSEtingerD (2018) Modelling the perceived pragmatic and hedonic quality of intelligent personal assistants. In: IHSI 2018: Advances in intelligent systems and computing (eds KarwowskiWAhramT), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 7–9 January 2018, pp. 589–594. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International. DOI: 10.1007/978–3–319–73888–8_91.
49.
PatersonLLowB (2011) Student attitudes towards mobile library services for smartphones. Library Hi Tech29(3): 412–423.
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 (CSCW ʼ17), Portland, OR, USA, 25 February–1 March 2017, pp. 207–219. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2998181.2998298.
52.
PorcheronMFischerJEReevesS, et al. (2018) Voice interfaces in everyday life. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ʼ18). Montréal, Canada, 21–26 April 2018. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3173574.3174214.
53.
PradhanAMehtaKFindlaterL (2018) ‘Accessibility came by accident’: Use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ʼ18). Montréal, Canada, 21–26 April 2018. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3173574.3174033.
54.
PuringtonATaftJGSannonS, et al. (2017) ‘Alexa is my new BFF’: Social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the Amazon Echo. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ʼ17), Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017, pp. 2853–2859. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3027063.3053246.
SantosJRodriguesJJPCCasalJ, et al. (2018) Intelligent personal assistants based on Internet of Things approaches. IEEE Systems Journal12(2): 1793–1802.
57.
SeeholzerJSalemJA (2011) Library on the go: A focus group study of the mobile web and the academic library. College & Research Libraries72(1): 9–20.
ThüringMMahlkeS (2007) Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology42(4): 253–264.
61.
ToufaniSStantonJPChikwecheT (2017) The importance of aesthetics on customers’ intentions to purchase smartphones. Marketing Intelligence & Planning35(3): 316–338.
