4 ms·

For the last point this made me think squarely at chatbots. I had a chatbox experience recently that could have been handled with a cancel order button on a web

For the last point this made me think squarely at chatbots. I had a chatbox experience recently that could have been handled with a cancel order button on a website. I had to go through a phone tree with the chatbot, say “no” 3 times until it let me type a free response. Said I wanted to cancel an order. “Did you mean cancel order?” Yes. Yes I did. What should have been a 2 second interaction with a ui element became a 5 minute song and dance. And I am a reasonably competent person on a computer. For someone who isn’t maybe this is enough to make them turn away from whatever action they were attempting to do in frustration. That is a big impact. And depending on where these chatbots have been shoehorned in, that impact could easily be disproportionately burdened on a protected class.

csa 2y ago
> I had to go through a phone tree with the chatbot, say “no” 3 times until it let me type a free response. I’m not excusing this design (it could probably be improved), but it may have been intentional. See below. > And I am a reasonably competent person on a computer. Most people are not. It’s generally unwise to design an automated system that assumes computer/tech competence. > For someone who isn’t maybe this is enough to make them turn away from whatever action they were attempting to do in frustration. I imagine it’s the other way around. This type of system saves folks with less tech savvy from themselves. I’m not sure if you’ve designed systems like this before. I have, and I was very surprised at what people thought was reasonable interaction and/or reasonable input. Confirming choices, perhaps multiple times, before moving forward can save a lot of headache later for everyone involved. The collateral damage is guaranteed “wasted” time for everyone using the chatbot, but the company largely doesn’t care about that — that is, they are more than willing to pass on the cost of their money (e.g., if they hired a human agent) for your time.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  We are talking about a cancel button here. If you can wrap your head around the order button they also have, you can wrap your head around a cancel order button. A phone tree is stupid lazy ux. Even worse when you now have to massage it out of a chatbot which isn’t even reliable in how it responds back to you like a phone tree used to be.

csa 2y ago

> I had to go through a phone tree with the chatbot, say “no” 3 times until it let me type a free response. I’m not excusing this design (it could probably be improved), but it may have been intentional. See below. > And I am a reasonably competent person on a computer. Most people are not. It’s generally unwise to design an automated system that assumes computer/tech competence. > For someone who isn’t maybe this is enough to make them turn away from whatever action they were attempting to do in frustration. I imagine it’s the other way around. This type of system saves folks with less tech savvy from themselves. I’m not sure if you’ve designed systems like this before. I have, and I was very surprised at what people thought was reasonable interaction and/or reasonable input. Confirming choices, perhaps multiple times, before moving forward can save a lot of headache later for everyone involved. The collateral damage is guaranteed “wasted” time for everyone using the chatbot, but the company largely doesn’t care about that — that is, they are more than willing to pass on the cost of their money (e.g., if they hired a human agent) for your time.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
We are talking about a cancel button here. If you can wrap your head around the order button they also have, you can wrap your head around a cancel order button. A phone tree is stupid lazy ux. Even worse when you now have to massage it out of a chatbot which isn’t even reliable in how it responds back to you like a phone tree used to be.