I, personally, rely heavily on the comma. For a mark that has no historical purpose, it certainly can cause a lot of stink. :)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c19d4866-24ff-471f-81ec-fbdae30c05e2.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Engrish banned from the Beijing during the Olympics!
As reported by the CBC, Beijing is trying to cut down on public shows of bad English.
That's sad - it's the only form of bastardized English that I tend to like. :(
That's sad - it's the only form of bastardized English that I tend to like. :(
Saturday, April 7, 2007
1-800-GOOG-411
http://labs.google.com/goog411/
I'd heard back in October that Google was getting into the Free-411 market, which, in turn, drove, or at least expedited, AOL's foray into that market (1-800-AOL-1234 in the US, 1-800-679-0892 in Canada and press * at the first menu), but hadn't heard a word regarding it since. Until I stumbled upon this article from the VUIDS Yahoo group.
I've played with Google Local Search a bit for work - you do a Google Maps search for a business in a specific location, and along with the other Google Maps features, there's a "Call" hyperlink. Click, it then asks you for your phone number, calls it, and once you pick up, it'll call the business (stay tuned for something very similar brought to you by the letters A, O and L). The Web version is ok for the "wow" factor (Look ma, I can make my phone ring!), but I think if I'm online looking to call a business, I'd rather find their phone number then call them directly.
Now, as one who'd rather go online than to call 411 to find a number, I'm not in the target audience for the voice search either, but I can see where it would come in handy. If I were in an area with no other option than to use 411, I'd also not likely be in a place with a pen and paper handy, and I might also have limited coinage for a pay phone, so letting me call it from getting the listing would be a good thing. Similar to to "send to phone" option I just found on Google Maps. Give me the information I want, let me act on it immediately and without extra effort if possible, or if not, let me save it in a persistent form with minimal effort.
I just called it. Its flow is a bit more smooth than others I've used (see above), and my results match what I got from the same query online. I can't fault them for using "press or say" because in a directed dialogue, there's little else you can do (other than hide the fact that it's a 'press or say' dialogue), although, I don't see much value in using the speech commands "number 1", "number 2", etc, but it might be more easily navigated than having to go "previous" "next" "skip" "that one!". I'm not going to criticize any automated speech recognition search system for speech recognition errors, since my experience calling human operators generally is a lot worse than the automated ones I've used. I'll likely have more comments in this UI once I've had the chance to try it more.
Now, to show some insight into the choices Google made. 1) limited search such as 411 is a heck of a lot easier than an unlimited search, so even when Google masters this domain, don't hold your breath for TUI-based Web searches. 2) in the 411 world, iirc, from easiest to most difficult are 1) government, 2) business, 3) personal. Google chose the 2nd easiest (or second most difficult, depending on your viewpoint), while steering far away from the hardest. Likely a smart move on their part - makes them look like they've mastered voice 411, while their competitors show lesser results while tackling the harder realm.
If you're going to compare apples to apples, I'd feel most comfortable comparing this to TellMe's Business Search. If you're going to compare AOL's version, put it up against 1-800-FREE-411. Either way, the gauntlet has been thrown. It should be interesting. :)
I'd heard back in October that Google was getting into the Free-411 market, which, in turn, drove, or at least expedited, AOL's foray into that market (1-800-AOL-1234 in the US, 1-800-679-0892 in Canada and press * at the first menu), but hadn't heard a word regarding it since. Until I stumbled upon this article from the VUIDS Yahoo group.
I've played with Google Local Search a bit for work - you do a Google Maps search for a business in a specific location, and along with the other Google Maps features, there's a "Call" hyperlink. Click, it then asks you for your phone number, calls it, and once you pick up, it'll call the business (stay tuned for something very similar brought to you by the letters A, O and L). The Web version is ok for the "wow" factor (Look ma, I can make my phone ring!), but I think if I'm online looking to call a business, I'd rather find their phone number then call them directly.
Now, as one who'd rather go online than to call 411 to find a number, I'm not in the target audience for the voice search either, but I can see where it would come in handy. If I were in an area with no other option than to use 411, I'd also not likely be in a place with a pen and paper handy, and I might also have limited coinage for a pay phone, so letting me call it from getting the listing would be a good thing. Similar to to "send to phone" option I just found on Google Maps. Give me the information I want, let me act on it immediately and without extra effort if possible, or if not, let me save it in a persistent form with minimal effort.
I just called it. Its flow is a bit more smooth than others I've used (see above), and my results match what I got from the same query online. I can't fault them for using "press or say" because in a directed dialogue, there's little else you can do (other than hide the fact that it's a 'press or say' dialogue), although, I don't see much value in using the speech commands "number 1", "number 2", etc, but it might be more easily navigated than having to go "previous" "next" "skip" "that one!". I'm not going to criticize any automated speech recognition search system for speech recognition errors, since my experience calling human operators generally is a lot worse than the automated ones I've used. I'll likely have more comments in this UI once I've had the chance to try it more.
Now, to show some insight into the choices Google made. 1) limited search such as 411 is a heck of a lot easier than an unlimited search, so even when Google masters this domain, don't hold your breath for TUI-based Web searches. 2) in the 411 world, iirc, from easiest to most difficult are 1) government, 2) business, 3) personal. Google chose the 2nd easiest (or second most difficult, depending on your viewpoint), while steering far away from the hardest. Likely a smart move on their part - makes them look like they've mastered voice 411, while their competitors show lesser results while tackling the harder realm.
If you're going to compare apples to apples, I'd feel most comfortable comparing this to TellMe's Business Search. If you're going to compare AOL's version, put it up against 1-800-FREE-411. Either way, the gauntlet has been thrown. It should be interesting. :)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Whoever designed those outbound IVRs that put you on hold should be shot
It's happened to me twice - you get a phone call, see it's from a toll-free number, decide to answer it rather than ignore it like you often do (having worked in an outbound call centre throughout University, I can appreciate that they're just people doing their job, so when I do answer it, I am always nice, but sometimes I'd rather go in their system as a "No Response"). You say "Hello?", hear the familiar pause of an outbound dialer, then hear "Due to an unusually large call volume.." in an automated voice. I generally tend to hang up laughing at that point, but I assume they're telling me to please hold for an available agent.
This has to be one of those cases where the business needs outweigh any concept of usability or usefulness. When you're doing something perceived to be as intrusive as an unsolicited outbound call, you DO NOT put your caller on hold!! It's bad enough being put on hold when you're calling them, but it's understandable, since you have no idea of the call volumes at a given time of day. When you're the one controlling the volume, as is the case with outbound calling, balance your outbound calls with the availability of agents! If something is bugged, and you're placing those calls, then find there is no available agent, I'd rather be hung up on than be put on hold - but that might be the designer in me.
This has to be one of those cases where the business needs outweigh any concept of usability or usefulness. When you're doing something perceived to be as intrusive as an unsolicited outbound call, you DO NOT put your caller on hold!! It's bad enough being put on hold when you're calling them, but it's understandable, since you have no idea of the call volumes at a given time of day. When you're the one controlling the volume, as is the case with outbound calling, balance your outbound calls with the availability of agents! If something is bugged, and you're placing those calls, then find there is no available agent, I'd rather be hung up on than be put on hold - but that might be the designer in me.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
We'll Miss you Mike. :(
The news was broken to us last Thursday. Our business leader, and the primary power user of AOL by Phone is no longer with the company. We're still unclear about what it means to us.
People Tend to Forget the Human Factor (but not THAT Human Factor)
1)
The prevolent dogma in Voice UI design is "Don't hide the agent!" which is very important in the initial roll out of an automated Call Centre routing system, and in the days when people weren't as used to dealing with machines as they are today, but I'm going to argue that there is another side to this - there are some people who have explicitly decided not to deal with a human being, and don't WANT to be rolled over to an agent.
This has come up in the context of a 411-deployment we've integrated with. If, after the first bit of information gathering, the set of results is too large to present in a uni-modal form, or, the first result presented to you is not the entry you were looking for, you will automatically be transferred to an operator. I don't fault them for relying on operator back up, since I cannot think of a decent, user-friendly means to present a huge list of results, but I think it should be optional. I know I hang up every time I'm threatened with it. They seem to see it as a failure of their design and implementation that they're seeing so many hangups during the transfer.
2)
People are tire kickers by nature. If you introduce a new feature to a menu, people are going to check it out, whether the feature interests them or not. On the same 411 deployment, they're also concerned about the number of people who they consider to be misdirects. That is, people who press the DTMF to go to 411, but hang up without starting a search. They seem to think it's due to their misunderstanding of what "Directory Assistance" is. Uh.. what? We've racked our brains for a more commonly used term, and cannot think of one. Anyone?
The prevolent dogma in Voice UI design is "Don't hide the agent!" which is very important in the initial roll out of an automated Call Centre routing system, and in the days when people weren't as used to dealing with machines as they are today, but I'm going to argue that there is another side to this - there are some people who have explicitly decided not to deal with a human being, and don't WANT to be rolled over to an agent.
This has come up in the context of a 411-deployment we've integrated with. If, after the first bit of information gathering, the set of results is too large to present in a uni-modal form, or, the first result presented to you is not the entry you were looking for, you will automatically be transferred to an operator. I don't fault them for relying on operator back up, since I cannot think of a decent, user-friendly means to present a huge list of results, but I think it should be optional. I know I hang up every time I'm threatened with it. They seem to see it as a failure of their design and implementation that they're seeing so many hangups during the transfer.
2)
People are tire kickers by nature. If you introduce a new feature to a menu, people are going to check it out, whether the feature interests them or not. On the same 411 deployment, they're also concerned about the number of people who they consider to be misdirects. That is, people who press the DTMF to go to 411, but hang up without starting a search. They seem to think it's due to their misunderstanding of what "Directory Assistance" is. Uh.. what? We've racked our brains for a more commonly used term, and cannot think of one. Anyone?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Writing for screen vs Writing for voice
I'm currently reading Eats Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss. That, combined with new job duties that require that I go back into the realm of writing for Web sites has sort of highlighted the issue of writing for screen vs writing for voice in my mind.
Back when I did Technical Writing, Lyn, my co-tech writer, and I, coined the expression "Writing is a privilege, not a right." and I think it applies to writing for voice, too. Perhaps more so. You have to be extra careful when you're writing for voice, since you don't have the advantage of persistence, so the listener cannot go back and re-read, or even dwell too long on what you've said. You have to also be very careful not to distance the "How to do it" from the "What it is" with supplementary explanatory text. When I write for screen, I generally think in terms of "small words, large font" - layout and typescript (bolding, italics, spacing) can go a long way toward clarifying what you're saying. When I write for voice, I favour a "terse but clear" model - how can I say this as clearly as possible in a few words as possible.
Writing for voice brings about its own challenges. I'm Canadian, but my audience is American (since AOL by Phone is not advertised as being available in Canada, but, well, it is), which many people might not think might not be an issue, and, well, it might not, but you have to be aware of it. Am I using too Canadian a terminology without knowing it? I was once scolded in personal conversation for referring to the US as, well, "The U.S.", but I've seen us do it in text. I'm still kind of timid about referring to it in any scripts I write - I've always favoured the "When in doubt, word around it." means of avoiding possible grammatical mistakes in both written and spoken language. I'm also without the luxury of being able to be at the studio with our voice talent, so how something is worded in my head might not be how it is recorded, but that's a topic for a future post.
As I said, it's a recent thing that I'm writing for screen again. I'm feeling rather retro having to ask how we're spelling "e-mail" these days, and how do you phrase the concept "voicemailbox" - voicemail box, voice mailbox, voicemail mailbox, etc - mostly because these issues are still unresolved from when I did it several years ago. We'd have huge discussions over it, only to have someone overhear, and shake their heads, wondering what it matters. I guess it's not that big a departure from the last years of arguing over how things should be worded for voice. I still have people shaking their heads, and wondering why I am so adamant things should be worded as concisely as they can be.
Back when I did Technical Writing, Lyn, my co-tech writer, and I, coined the expression "Writing is a privilege, not a right." and I think it applies to writing for voice, too. Perhaps more so. You have to be extra careful when you're writing for voice, since you don't have the advantage of persistence, so the listener cannot go back and re-read, or even dwell too long on what you've said. You have to also be very careful not to distance the "How to do it" from the "What it is" with supplementary explanatory text. When I write for screen, I generally think in terms of "small words, large font" - layout and typescript (bolding, italics, spacing) can go a long way toward clarifying what you're saying. When I write for voice, I favour a "terse but clear" model - how can I say this as clearly as possible in a few words as possible.
Writing for voice brings about its own challenges. I'm Canadian, but my audience is American (since AOL by Phone is not advertised as being available in Canada, but, well, it is), which many people might not think might not be an issue, and, well, it might not, but you have to be aware of it. Am I using too Canadian a terminology without knowing it? I was once scolded in personal conversation for referring to the US as, well, "The U.S.", but I've seen us do it in text. I'm still kind of timid about referring to it in any scripts I write - I've always favoured the "When in doubt, word around it." means of avoiding possible grammatical mistakes in both written and spoken language. I'm also without the luxury of being able to be at the studio with our voice talent, so how something is worded in my head might not be how it is recorded, but that's a topic for a future post.
As I said, it's a recent thing that I'm writing for screen again. I'm feeling rather retro having to ask how we're spelling "e-mail" these days, and how do you phrase the concept "voicemailbox" - voicemail box, voice mailbox, voicemail mailbox, etc - mostly because these issues are still unresolved from when I did it several years ago. We'd have huge discussions over it, only to have someone overhear, and shake their heads, wondering what it matters. I guess it's not that big a departure from the last years of arguing over how things should be worded for voice. I still have people shaking their heads, and wondering why I am so adamant things should be worded as concisely as they can be.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
You've got speech!
http://voice.aol.com/voice/index.adp?
My suite of products, over which I am lord (lady?). I am the co-owner of the user experience for AOL Voice Services. My primary field of interest, and my skillset, is Voice UI, but I'm also partially responsible for GUI. I guess I got myself into this having opinions about how the Website was worded. :)
First, something about me. I celebrate my 8th anniversary in the same officespace this coming Saturday. During this time, I have worked for 2 companies (InfoInterActive, Inc and AOL - IIA having been acquired by AOL in 2001) 3), and have held 5 positions 1) Customer Service Rep, 2) Technical Writer, 3) Software QA Engineer (toot toot!), 4) Senior Speech Designer, 5) ????. Two of those positions, I worked toward; three just kind of happened.
Prior to that, to work my way through school, I worked in an outbound call centre doing phone surveys. For 4 years. It's directly paved my way to where I am now - I got my first job here thanks to my phone experience.
So, who better to do TUI design than one who has been a TUI herself, one who has documented telephony apps, and one who has tested them for 4 years. :)
My suite of products, over which I am lord (lady?). I am the co-owner of the user experience for AOL Voice Services. My primary field of interest, and my skillset, is Voice UI, but I'm also partially responsible for GUI. I guess I got myself into this having opinions about how the Website was worded. :)
First, something about me. I celebrate my 8th anniversary in the same officespace this coming Saturday. During this time, I have worked for 2 companies (InfoInterActive, Inc and AOL - IIA having been acquired by AOL in 2001) 3), and have held 5 positions 1) Customer Service Rep, 2) Technical Writer, 3) Software QA Engineer (toot toot!), 4) Senior Speech Designer, 5) ????. Two of those positions, I worked toward; three just kind of happened.
Prior to that, to work my way through school, I worked in an outbound call centre doing phone surveys. For 4 years. It's directly paved my way to where I am now - I got my first job here thanks to my phone experience.
So, who better to do TUI design than one who has been a TUI herself, one who has documented telephony apps, and one who has tested them for 4 years. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)