> 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

> 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.