What is the benefit of anthropomorphizing a UI?

Question

Earlier I withdrew some money from the cash machine and at one point the screen read:

"Hold on, I'm contacting the server".

The designers of the system had chosen to infer through the language used, that the machine had a personality.

My reaction as UXer was one of puzzlement/curiosity. When I asked my wife what she thought, she used the word "creepy".

Do we know anything about why this is done? Does it actually lead to generally more positive user experiences? And if so, what are the principles behind how it works?

Or is it just something that emerged from the evolving practice of UI design, and it caught on because people like the idea of it, rather than it having explicit value?

Answer 1

Alan Cooper makes the point IIRC specifically in The Inmates are Running the Asylum (coincidentally also using an ATM example) that a source of poor UX is that computers do not interact i.e. "converse" like real people. e.g.

1. You: "Withdraw $200"
2. Computer: "Insufficient funds"
3. You: "Check balance"
4. Computer: "$187.34"

with a human

1. You: "Withdraw $200"
2. Person: "You have insufficient funds, maximum you can withdraw is $187.3"

Now it is quite easy for someone to overshoot and think that a "conversational UI" goal implies "anthropomorphism" which does not necessarily hold.

In the example you give it seems an interesting case where computers don't do Conversation Alignment.

Now we must challenge ourselves to design systems that accept and support users’ conversations. Machines cannot yet negotiate alignment, but they can and should help their users carry on conversations

Something humanistic and a natural conversation UX to one Persona may be creepy for another. UI isn't adapting to contextual clues.

Answer 2

I would like to give you one explanation that comes from my field of activity. It has to do with the design of human-computer-interaction or better: human-automation-interaction. Very often tasks are too complicated to be fully automated. At certain points of the solution process the user has to be incorporated.

Researchers found that a "mixed initiative interaction" is most suitable for this type of tasks. In mixed initiative interaction the system acts an an "agent", that is as an equal partner to discuss with during the solution process. This strategy aims to support and encourage the human decision making and problem solving skills.

With the concept of mixed initiative interaction in mind, the human-like communication style in user interfaces can be explained. It is often the most intuitive way to simulate the artificial agent working on a task together with the user. Below you find an article on this topic. It contains an example (the software "Lookout"), where human and computer negotiate about appointments. The user states his preferences, the computer checks the calender and confirms or makes alternative suggestions. The communication style of human agents is used, for example the artificial agent says: "You will be busy at that date, should I suggest another date?" This contributes to a natural flow of information exchange between two agents that aims to find a solution that is acceptable for both parties.

Summarizing, you can simulate a personality if human computer collaboration is essential for accomplishing a task and if a human-like dialog supports the human decision making process. Depending on the particular application there can be different ways to design mixed initiative interaction.

The cash machine example can be related to mixed initiative design as follows:

1. At the point where the message appears the successful completion of the task not only depends on the machine, but also on the user, because the transaction cannot be completed if the user interrupts the machine or if he goes away.
2. Therefore the user has to be prompted to wait and in order to make this comprehensible a reason has to be given ("the server has to be contacted").
3. The I-perspective further increases the trust in the system and the confidence in a successful completion: It leads to the mental model "Ok, there is an agent doing its best to provide the desired service to me, I do what he asks from me". It also reduces the technical nature of the message. If the message was for example "Please wait, the system has to contact the server", the technical nature of the message could intimidate the user, he could even take it for a problem.

Reference: Hearst, M. A. (1999), 'Trends & Controversies: Mixed-initiative interaction.', IEEE Intelligent Systems 14 (5) , 14-23 .

Answer 3

Why we chose to do something similar was the result of internal studies. Something we try to keep in mind is that we (designers|programmers|analysts) are not representative of our audience. Not to be snobbish, we just remember that half of our users are "below average" and we have to keep systems accessible to all. We aim for about a 5th grade reading level, which keeps it simpler for everyone, including those for whom English is a second language.