9,456 research outputs found

    WEB service interfaces for inter-organisational business processes an infrastructure for automated reconciliation

    Get PDF
    For the majority of front-end e-business systems, the assumption of a coherent and homogeneous set of interfaces is highly unrealistic. Problems start in the back-end, with systems characterised by a heterogeneous mix of applications and business processes. Integration can be complex and expensive, as systems evolve more in accordance with business needs than with technical architectures. E-business systems are faced with the challenge to give a coherent image of a diversified reality. Web services make business interfaces more efficient, but effectiveness is a business requirement of at least comparable importance. We propose a technique for automatic reconciliation of the Web service interfaces involved in inter-organisational business processes. The working assumption is that the Web service front-end of each company is represented by a set of WSDL and WSCL interfaces. The result of our reconciliation method is a common interface that all the parties can effectively enforce. Indications are also given on ways to adapt individual interfaces to the common one. The technique was embodied in a prototype that we also present

    Designing Chatbots for Crises: A Case Study Contrasting Potential and Reality

    No full text
    Chatbots are becoming ubiquitous technologies, and their popularity and adoption are rapidly spreading. The potential of chatbots in engaging people with digital services is fully recognised. However, the reputation of this technology with regards to usefulness and real impact remains rather questionable. Studies that evaluate how people perceive and utilise chatbots are generally lacking. During the last Kenyan elections, we deployed a chatbot on Facebook Messenger to help people submit reports of violence and misconduct experienced in the polling stations. Even though the chatbot was visited by more than 3,000 times, there was a clear mismatch between the usersโ€™ perception of the technology and its design. In this paper, we analyse the user interactions and content generated through this application and discuss the challenges and directions for designing more effective chatbots

    Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger

    Get PDF
    With the exponential growth in the mobile device market over the last decade, chatbots are becoming an increasingly popular option to interact with users, and their popularity and adoption are rapidly spreading. These mobile devices change the way we communicate and allow ever-present learning in various environments. This study examined educational chatbots for Facebook Messenger to support learning. The independent web directory was screened to assess chatbots for this study resulting in the identification of 89 unique chatbots. Each chatbot was classified by language, subject matter and developer's platform. Finally, we evaluated 47 educational chatbots using the Facebook Messenger platform based on the analytic hierarchy process against the quality attributes of teaching, humanity, affect, and accessibility. We found that educational chatbots on the Facebook Messenger platform vary from the basic level of sending personalized messages to recommending learning content. Results show that chatbots which are part of the instant messaging application are still in its early stages to become artificial intelligence teaching assistants. The findings provide tips for teachers to integrate chatbots into classroom practice and advice what types of chatbots they can try out.Web of Science151art. no. 10386

    PLATICA: Personalized Language Acquisition Training & Instruction Chatbot Assistant

    Get PDF
    English is immensely important and useful in our society, however there are many people across the world who are learning English as a second language and have limited options to practice. Casual English conversations with native speakers is one of the most proven and immersive ways to practice a language. However, not everyone has those opportunities or the resources to attend ESL classes. We aim to solve this issue with our project PLATICA, a robust, low-cost mobile application that anyone can use to build experience conversing in English. PLATICA takes advantage of state-of-the-art deep learning and natural language processing techniques to emulate real conversations while providing real-time grammar feedback to assist the user in improving their English skills. PLATICA as an end-to-end learning pipeline could also be adapted to other languages in the future

    The accessibility of administrative processes: Assessing the impacts on students in higher education

    Get PDF
    Administrative processes that need to be completed to maintain a basic standard of living, to study, or to attain employment, are perceived to create burdens for disabled people. The navigation of information, forms, communications, and assessments to achieve a particular goal raises diverse accessibility issues. In this paper we explore the different types of impacts these processes have on disabled university students. We begin by surveying literature that highlights the systemic characteristics of administrative burdens and barriers for disabled people. We then describe how a participatory research exercise with students led to the development of a survey on these issues. This was completed by 104 respondents with a diverse range of declared disabilities. This provides evidence for a range of impacts, and understanding of the perceived level of challenge of commonly experienced processes. The most common negative impact reported was on stress levels. Other commonly reported impacts include exacerbation of existing conditions, time lost from study, and instances where support was not available in a timely fashion. Processes to apply for disability-related support were more commonly challenging than other types of processes. We use this research to suggest directions for improving accessibility and empowerment in this space

    ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ•œ ์Œ์„ฑ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž ์ธํ„ฐํŽ˜์ด์Šค์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž ๊ฒฝํ—˜์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž ์ค‘์‹ฌ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ: ์ง€๋Šฅํ˜• ๊ฐœ์ธ ๋น„์„œ๋ฅผ ์ค‘์‹ฌ์œผ๋กœ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (๋ฐ•์‚ฌ) -- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์ธ๋ฌธ๋Œ€ํ•™ ํ˜‘๋™๊ณผ์ • ์ธ์ง€๊ณผํ•™์ „๊ณต, 2021. 2. ์œค๋ช…ํ™˜.In recent years, research on Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) has been actively conducted. The VUI has many advantages which can be very useful for the general public as well as for elderly people and people with disabilities. The VUI is considered very suitable for individuals with disabilities to promote universal access to information, decreasing the gap between users with non-disabilities and users with disabilities. In this respect, many researchers have been trying to apply the VUI to various areas for people with disabilities to increase their independence and quality of life. However, previous studies related to VUIs for people with disabilities usually focused on developments and evaluations of new systems, and empirical studies are limited. There have been a few studies related to User Experience (UX) of VUIs for people with disabilities. This situation is not different with studies related to Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs) which one of the most wildly being used VUIs nowadays. Although IPAs have potential to be practically used for users with disabilities because they can perform various tasks than simple VUIs, research related to UX of IPAs for them has been paid little attention to, only focusing on a young adult and middle-aged group among people with non-disabilities as end-users. Many previous studies referred to that IPAs would be helpful to people with disabilities. However, only a few studies related to IPAs have been conducted from the angle of users with disabilities, especially in terms of UX. It is known for that investigating usability and UX for users with disabilities is more difficult and delicate than that of users with non-disabilities. It can be said that research on UX of IPAs for users with disabilities should be conducted more closely to understand their interactions with IPAs. The purpose of the research in this dissertation is to investigate UX of VUIs for users with disabilities, focusing on IPAs. The research in this dissertation consists of three independent main studies. Study 1 investigates UX of commercially available VUIs for users with disabilities, by examining acceptance, focusing on the differences between users with different types of disabilities and identifying the reasons why they use or not use VUIs. A questionnaire survey was conducted for users with disabilities having used one or more VUIs. The collected data were analyzed statistically and qualitatively. The results of this study show acceptance of VUIs and the relationships between the acceptance factors for users with disabilities, with some differences between users with different types of disabilities. The results of this study also provide some insights related to UX of VUIs for users with disabilities from their perspective, showing that the acceptance factors can be used as criteria in comprehending the issues. Study 2 investigates UX of IPAs based on online reviews written by users through semantic network analysis. Before investigating UX of IPAs for users with disabilities, important factors for UX of IPAs were proposed by investigating UX of IPAs for users with non-disabilities in this study. As a case study, online reviews on smart speakers from the internet were collected. Then, the collected text data were preprocessed and structured in which words having similar meaning were clustered into one representative keyword. After this, the frequency of the keywords was calculated, and keywords in top 50 frequency were used for the analysis, because they were considered core keywords. Based on the keywords, a network was visualized, and centrality was measured. The results of this study show that most of the users were satisfied with the use of IPAs, although they felt that the performance of them was not completely reliable. In addition, the results of this study show aesthetic aspects of IPAs are also important for usersโ€™ enjoyment, especially for the satisfaction of users. This study proposes eleven important factors to be considered for UX of IPAs and among them, suggests ten factors to be considered in the design of IPAs to improve UX of IPAs and to satisfy users. Study 3 investigates UX of IPAs for users with disabilities and identifies how the use of IPAs affects quality of life of them, based on Study 1 and Study 2. In this study, comparisons with users with non-disabilities are also conducted. A questionnaire survey and a written interview were conducted for users with disabilities and users with non-disabilities having used one or more smart speakers. The collected data were analyzed statistically and qualitatively. The results of this study show that, regardless of disability, most users are sharing the main UX of IPAs and can benefit the use of IPA. The results of this study also show that the investigation on qualitative data is essential to the study for users with disabilities, offering various insights related to UX of IPAs from the angle of them and clear differences in UX of IPAs between users with disabilities and users with non-disabilities. This study proposes important factors for UX of IPAs for users with disabilities and users with non-disabilities based on the discussed factors for UX of IPAs in Study 2. This study also discusses various design implications for UX of IPAs and provides three important design implications which should be considered to improve UX, focusing on the interaction design of IPAs for not only users with disabilities but also all potential users. Each study provides design implications. Study 1 discusses design implications for UX of VUIs for users with disabilities. Study 2 suggests design implications for UX of IPAs, focusing on users with non-disabilities. Study 3 discusses various design implications for UX of IPAs and proposes three specific implications focusing on the interaction design of IPAs for all potential users. It is possible to expect that reflecting the implications in the interaction design of IPA will be helpful to all potential users, not just users with disabilities.์ตœ๊ทผ์— ๋“ค์–ด์™€ ์Œ์„ฑ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž ์ธํ„ฐํŽ˜์ด์Šค๋“ค(Voice User Interfaces, VUIs)์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€ ํ™œ๋ฐœํžˆ ์ง„ํ–‰๋˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. VUI๋Š” ์ผ๋ฐ˜์ ์ธ ์‚ฌ๋žŒ๋“ค์€ ๋ฌผ๋ก , ๊ณ ๋ น์ž ๋ฐ ์žฅ์• ์ธ๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ๋„ ๋งค์šฐ ์œ ์šฉํ•œ ๋งŽ์€ ์žฅ์ ๋“ค์„ ๊ฐ€์ง€๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. VUI๋Š” ์žฅ์• ์ธ๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ๋ณดํŽธ์  ์ •๋ณด ์ ‘๊ทผ์„ ์šฉ์ดํ•˜๊ฒŒ ํ•œ๋‹ค๋Š” ์ ์—์„œ ์žฅ์• ์ธ๊ณผ ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ๊ฐ„ ์กด์žฌํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋Š” ์ •๋ณด ๊ฒฉ์ฐจ๋ฅผ ์ค„์ด๋Š” ๋งค์šฐ ์œ ์šฉํ•œ ์—ญํ• ์„ ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๊ด€์ ์—์„œ, ๋งŽ์€ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์ž๋“ค์€ ์žฅ์• ์ธ๋“ค์˜ ๋…๋ฆฝ์„ฑ๊ณผ ์‚ถ์˜ ์งˆ์„ ๋†’์ด๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด VUI๋ฅผ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์˜์—ญ์— ์ ์šฉํ•˜๋ ค๊ณ  ํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ํ•˜์ง€๋งŒ, ์žฅ์• ์ธ๋“ค์„ ์œ„ํ•œ VUIs์™€ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ์„ ํ–‰์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์€ ๋Œ€๋ถ€๋ถ„ ์ƒˆ๋กœ์šด ์‹œ์Šคํ…œ์˜ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ ๋ฐ ํ‰๊ฐ€์— ์ค‘์ ์„ ๋‘๊ณ  ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ ๊ฒฝํ—˜์  ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์ œํ•œ์ ์ด๋‹ค. ํŠนํžˆ, ์žฅ์• ์ธ์„ ์œ„ํ•œ VUIs์™€ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค ์ค‘ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๊ฒฝํ—˜(User Experience, UX)์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์ƒ๋‹นํžˆ ๋“œ๋ฌผ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์ƒํ™ฉ์€ ์˜ค๋Š˜๋‚  ๊ฐ€์žฅ ๋งŽ์ด ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋˜๋Š” VUIs ์ค‘ ํ•˜๋‚˜์ธ ์ง€๋Šฅํ˜• ๊ฐœ์ธ ๋น„์„œ๋“ค(Intelligent Personal Assistants, IPAs)์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋„ ๋งˆ์ฐฌ๊ฐ€์ง€์ด๋‹ค. IPAs๋Š” ๋‹จ์ˆœํ•œ VUIs๋ณด๋‹ค ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์ž‘์—…์„ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๊ธฐ ๋•Œ๋ฌธ์— ์žฅ์• ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ๋งค์šฐ ์‹ค์šฉ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ํ•˜์ง€๋งŒ, IPAs์˜ UX ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊ฑฐ์˜ ์ฃผ๋ชฉ๋ฐ›์ง€ ๋ชป ํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ์ค‘ ์ฒญ๋…„ ๋ฐ ์ค‘๋…„์ธต๋งŒ์ด ์ตœ์ข… ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค๋กœ ๊ณ ๋ ค๋˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด์ „์˜ ๋งŽ์€ ์„ ํ–‰์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์€ IPAs๊ฐ€ ์žฅ์• ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ์‚ฌ๋žŒ๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ํฐ ๋„์›€์ด ๋  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค๊ณ  ์ž…์„ ๋ชจ์•„ ๋งํ•œ๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋Ÿฌ๋‚˜ ์‹ค์žฌ๋กœ ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์˜ ์ž…์žฅ์—์„œ ์ง„ํ–‰๋œ IPAs์™€ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๋ณ„๋กœ ์—†์œผ๋ฉฐ IPAs์˜ UX ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๋”์šฑ ๋ถ€์กฑํ•œ ์ƒํ™ฉ์ด๋‹ค. ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค๊ณผ ๋น„๊ตํ–ˆ์„ ๋•Œ ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์˜ ์ž…์žฅ์—์„œ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์„ฑ(usability) ๋ฐ UX๋ฅผ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์€ ๋ณต์žกํ•˜๊ณ  ์–ด๋ ค์šด ์ผ์ด๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋ ‡๊ธฐ์— ์žฅ์• ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ IPAs์˜ UX์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€ ๋ณด๋‹ค ์ฒ ์ €ํžˆ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ ธ์•ผ ํ•œ๋‹ค๊ณ  ๋ณผ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๋ฐฐ๊ฒฝ์„ ๋‘๊ณ , ๋ณธ ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ์˜ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ๋ชฉ์ ์€ ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ IPAs์— ์ค‘์ ์„ ๋‘๊ณ  VUIs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ์€ ํฌ๊ฒŒ ์„ธ ๊ฐœ์˜ ๋…๋ฆฝ์ ์ธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋กœ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ ธ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 1์—์„œ๋Š” ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ์žฅ์• ๋ฅผ ๊ฐ€์ง€๊ณ  ์žˆ๋Š” ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์˜ ์ฐจ์ด๋“ค๊ณผ ๊ทธ๋“ค์ด VUIs์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๊ฑฐ๋‚˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์ง€ ์•Š๋Š” ์ด์œ ๋ฅผ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•˜๋Š”๋ฐ ์ค‘์ ์„ ๋‘๊ณ , ์ƒ์šฉํ™”๋œ VUIs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•œ๋‹ค. ํ•˜๋‚˜์ด์ƒ์˜ VUIs๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•œ ๊ฒฝํ—˜์ด ์žˆ๋Š” ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ์„ค๋ฌธ์กฐ์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ˆ˜์ง‘๋œ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋Š” ํ†ต๊ณ„์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ์ •์„ฑ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋“ค์€ ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์˜ ์žฅ์• ์œ ํ˜•์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ VUIs์˜ ์ˆ˜์šฉ๋„(acceptance)์™€ ์ˆ˜์šฉ๋„ ์š”์ธ๋“ค ๊ฐ„ ๊ด€๊ณ„์— ์ฐจ์ด๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ค€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋“ค์€ ์ˆ˜์šฉ๋„ ์š”์ธ๋“ค์ด VUIs์˜ UX ์ด์Šˆ๋“ค์„ ์ดํ•ดํ•˜๋Š”๋ฐ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์คŒ๊ณผ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ์œ„ํ•œ VUIs์˜ UX์™€ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์ธ์‚ฌ์ดํŠธ๋“ค(insights)์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•ด์ค€๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 2์—์„œ๋Š” ์˜๋ฏธ ์‹ ๊ฒฝ๋ง(semantic network) ๋ถ„์„์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๊ฐ€ ์ž‘์„ฑํ•œ ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ ๋ฆฌ๋ทฐ๋ฅผ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜์œผ๋กœ IPAs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•œ๋‹ค. ํ•ด๋‹น ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ IPAs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜๊ธฐ ์ „์— ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ IPAs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜์—ฌ IPAs์˜ UX์™€ ๊ด€๋ จํ•˜์—ฌ ์ค‘์š”ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•ด์•ผ ํ•  ์š”์ธ๋“ค์„ ์ œ์•ˆํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ์‚ฌ๋ก€ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋กœ, ์ธํ„ฐ๋„ท์—์„œ ์Šค๋งˆํŠธ ์Šคํ”ผ์ปค์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ ๋ฆฌ๋ทฐ๋“ค์„ ์ˆ˜์ง‘ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ทธ ํ›„, ํ…์ŠคํŠธ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋ฅผ ์ „์ฒ˜๋ฆฌ ๋ฐ ๊ตฌ์กฐํ™”์˜€๊ณ , ์ด ๊ณผ์ •์—์„œ ์œ ์‚ฌํ•œ ์˜๋ฏธ๋ฅผ ๊ฐ–๋Š” ๋‹จ์–ด๋“ค์ด ์žˆ์„ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ํ•˜๋‚˜์˜ ๋Œ€ํ‘œ ํ‚ค์›Œ๋“œ๋กœ ๋ณ€ํ™˜ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด ๊ณผ์ •์„ ๊ฑฐ์นœ ํ›„, ํ‚ค์›Œ๋“œ๋“ค์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋นˆ๋„์ˆ˜๋ฅผ ๊ณ„์‚ฐํ•˜์—ฌ, ๋นˆ๋„์ˆ˜ ์ƒ์œ„ 50๊ฐœ์˜ ํ‚ค์›Œ๋“œ๋“ค์ด ํ•ต์‹ฌ ํ‚ค์›Œ๋“œ๋“ค๋กœ ๋ณด์˜€๊ธฐ์—, ๋นˆ๋„์ˆ˜ ์ƒ์œ„ 50๊ฐœ์˜ ํ‚ค์›Œ๋“œ๋“ค์„ ๋ถ„์„์— ์‚ฌ์šฉํ–ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด ํ‚ค์›Œ๋“œ๋“ค์„ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ๋„คํŠธ์›Œํฌ๋ฅผ ์‹œ๊ฐํ™” ํ•˜์˜€๊ณ  ์ค‘์‹ฌ์„ฑ(centrality)์„ ๊ณ„์‚ฐํ–ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋“ค์€ ๋น„๋ก IPAs์˜ ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด์„œ ์™„์ „ํžˆ ์‹ ๋ขฐํ•˜์ง€๋Š” ๋ชป ํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋”๋ผ๋„ ๋Œ€๋ถ€๋ถ„์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์ด IPAs ์‚ฌ์šฉ์— ๋งŒ์กฑํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ์—ˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ค€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋“ค์€ IPAs์˜ ์‹ฌ๋ฏธ์  ์ธก๋ฉด๋“ค์ด ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์˜ ์ฆ๊ฑฐ์›€๊ณผ ๋งŒ์กฑ์— ์ค‘์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ค€๋‹ค. ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” IPAs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ๊ณ ๋ คํ•ด์•ผ ํ•  ์—ด ํ•œ ๊ฐœ์˜ ์ค‘์š” ์š”์ธ๋“ค์„ ์ œ์•ˆํ•˜๊ณ , ๊ทธ ์ค‘์—์„œ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๋งŒ์กฑ์‹œํ‚ค๊ณ  IPAs์˜ ๋””์ž์ธ ์‹œ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•ด์•ผ ํ•  ํ•„์š”๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ์—ด ๊ฐœ์˜ ์š”์ธ๋“ค์„ ์‹œ์‚ฌํ•ด์ค€๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 3์—์„œ๋Š”, ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 1๊ณผ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 2๋ฅผ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ, ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ IPAs์˜ UX์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜๊ณ  IPAs์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ด ๊ทธ๋“ค์˜ ์‚ถ์˜ ์งˆ(quality of life)์— ์–ด๋– ํ•œ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ๋Š”์ง€์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด์„œ ์•Œ์•„๋ณด๊ณ ์ž ํ•œ๋‹ค. ์ด ๊ณผ์ •์—์„œ ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค๊ณผ ๋น„๊ต ๋˜ํ•œ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์กŒ๋‹ค. ํ•˜๋‚˜์ด์ƒ์˜ IPAs๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋Š” ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค๊ณผ ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ์„ค๋ฌธ์กฐ์‚ฌ์™€ ์„œ๋ฉด ์ธํ„ฐ๋ทฐ๋ฅผ ์ง„ํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ˆ˜์ง‘๋œ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋Š” ํ†ต๊ณ„์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ์ •์„ฑ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋“ค์€, ์žฅ์•  ์œ ๋ฌด์™€ ์ƒ๊ด€์—†์ด, ๋Œ€๋ถ€๋ถ„์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์ด ์ฃผ์š” IPAs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ๊ณต์œ ํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ IPAs ์‚ฌ์šฉ์— ํ˜œํƒ์„ ๋ˆ„๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ค€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋“ค์€ ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์˜ ์ž…์žฅ์—์„œ IPAs์˜ UX์™€ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์ธ์‚ฌ์ดํŠธ๋“ค๊ณผ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ๋‘ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž ๊ทธ๋ฃน ๊ฐ„ ๋ช…ํ™•ํ•œ ์ฐจ์ด๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์คŒ์œผ๋กœ์จ ์ด๋“ค์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ ์ •์„ฑ์  ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋ถ„์„์ด ํ•„์ˆ˜์ ์ด๋ผ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์‹ค์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ค€๋‹ค. ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š”, ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 2์—์„œ ๋…ผ์˜๋œ ์š”์ธ๋“ค์„ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ, ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค๊ณผ ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ์œ„ํ•œ IPAs์˜ UX์— ์žˆ์–ด ์ค‘์š” ์š”์ธ๋“ค์„ ์ œ์•ˆํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” IPA์˜ UX์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ๋””์ž์ธ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค(implications)์„ ๋…ผ์˜ํ•˜๊ณ , ์žฅ์• ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค๋ฟ๋งŒ ์•„๋‹ˆ๋ผ ๋ชจ๋“  ์ž ์žฌ์  ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•œ IPA์˜ ์ƒํ˜ธ ์ž‘์šฉ ์„ค๊ณ„์— ์ค‘์ ์„ ๋‘” ๊ตฌ์ฒด์ ์ธ ์„ธ ๊ฐœ์˜ ๋””์ž์ธ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ๋‹ค. ๊ฐ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๋””์ž์ธ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 1์—์„œ๋Š” ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ VUIs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ ๋””์ž์ธ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค์„ ๋…ผ์˜ํ•œ๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 2์—์„œ๋Š” ๋น„์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘๊ณ  IPAs์˜ UX๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ ๋””์ž์ธ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค์„ ์ œ์‹œํ•œ๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ 3์—์„œ๋Š” ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋“ค๋งŒ์ด ์•„๋‹Œ ๋ชจ๋“  ์ž ์žฌ์  ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ๋„์›€์ด ๋  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋Š” ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ๋””์ž์ธ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค์„ ๋…ผ์˜ํ•˜๊ณ  IPA์˜ ์ƒํ˜ธ ์ž‘์šฉ ์„ค๊ณ„์— ์ค‘์ ์„ ๋‘” ๊ตฌ์ฒด์ ์ธ ์„ธ ๊ฐœ์˜ ๋””์ž์ธ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค์„ ์ œ์•ˆํ•œ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ํ•จ์˜๋“ค์„ IPAs์˜ ๋””์ž์ธ์— ๋ฐ˜์˜ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์€ ์žฅ์• ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค๋ฟ๋งŒ ์•„๋‹ˆ๋ผ ์ž ์žฌ์ ์ธ ๋ชจ๋“  ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์—๊ฒŒ ๋„์›€์ด ๋  ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค.ABSTRACT I CONTENTS V LIST OF TABLES VIII LIST OF FIGURES X CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Research Background 1 1.2. Research Objective 4 1.3. Outline of this Dissertation 7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1. People with Disabilities and Research Methods for Them 10 2.1.1. People with Disabilities 10 2.1.2. Research Methods for People with Disabilities 11 2.2. Conceptual Frameworks 13 2.2.1. User Experience of Voice User Interfaces 13 2.2.2. Design Approaches for Accessibility 18 2.3. Related Work 22 2.3.1. Previous Studies Related to Voice User Interfaces 22 2.3.2. Previous Studies Related to Intelligent Personal Assistants 25 CHAPTER 3 INVESTIGATION ON USER EXPERIENCE OF VOICE USER INTERFACES FOR USERS WITH DISABILITIES BY EXAMINING ACCEPTANCE 31 3.1. Introduction 31 3.2. Method 35 3.2.1. Participants 35 3.2.2. Procedure 35 3.2.3. Questionnaire 36 3.2.4. Analysis 38 3.2.4.1. Statistical Analysis 38 3.2.4.1. Qualitative Analysis 38 3.3. Results 38 3.3.1. Reliability Analysis and Validity Analysis 38 3.3.2. Descriptive Analysis and Independent Two-Sample T-Test 39 3.3.3. Multiple Regression Analysis 39 3.3.4. Analysis on Comments of the Participants 44 3.4. Discussion 45 3.4.1. User Experience of Voice User Interfaces for Users with Disabilities 45 3.4.2. Reasons of Users with Disabilities for Using Voice User Interfaces or not 48 3.4.3. Design Implications on Voice User Interfaces for Users with Disabilities 50 3.5. Conclusion 51 CHAPTER 4 INVESTIGATION ON USER EXPERIENCE OF INTELLIGENT PERSONAL ASSISTANTS FROM ONLINE REVIEWS BY IDENTIFYING IMPORTANT FACTORS 54 4.1. Introduction 54 4.2. Method 56 4.2.1. Data Collection 56 4.2.2. Preprocessing and Structuring Data 57 4.2.3. Analysis 57 4.3. Results 60 4.3.1. Analysis on Frequency of the Keywords and Categorizing the Keywords 61 4.3.2. Visualization of the Network 61 4.3.3. Analysis on Centrality of the Keywords 65 4.4. Discussion 65 4.4.1. User Experience of Intelligent Personal Assistants through Semantic Network Analysis from Online Reviews 65 4.4.2. Important Factors for User Experience of Intelligent Personal Assistants and Design Implications 70 4.5. Conclusion 74 CHAPTER 5 INVESTIGATION ON USER EXPERIENCE OF INTELLIGENT PERSONAL ASSISTANTS AND EFFECTS ON QUALITY OF LIFE FOR USERS WITH DISABILITIES BY COMPARING WITH USERS WITH NON-DISABILITIES 76 5.1. Introduction 76 5.2. Method 78 5.2.1. Participants 78 5.2.2. Procedure 79 5.2.3. Questionnaire 79 5.2.4. Written Interview 81 5.2.5. Analysis 84 5.2.5.1. Statistical Analysis 84 5.2.5.2. Qualitative Analysis 84 5.3. Results 85 5.3.1. Reliability Analysis and Validity Analysis 85 5.3.2. Descriptive Analysis and Mann-Whitney U-test 85 5.3.2.1. User Experience of Intelligent Personal Assistants 85 5.3.2.2. Effects of the Use of Intelligent Personal Assistants on Quality of Life 87 5.3.3. Analysis on the Written Interview 89 5.3.3.1. Analysis on Issues Related to User Experience from the Written Interview 89 5.3.3.2. Semantic Network Analysis on the Written Interview 91 5.4. Discussion 99 5.4.1. User Experience of Intelligent Personal Assistants 99 5.4.1.1. Discussion on the Statistical Analysis 99 5.4.1.2. Discussion on the Analysis on the Written Interview 106 5.4.2. Effects of the Use of Intelligent Personal Assistants on Quality of Life 110 5.4.2.1. Discussion on the Statistical Analysis 110 5.4.2.2. Discussion on the Analysis on the Written Interview 111 5.4.3. Design Implications for User Experience of Intelligent Personal Assistants for Users with Disabilities 112 5.5. Conclusion 115 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 118 6.1. Summary of this Research 118 6.2. Contributions of this Research 121 6.3. Limitations of this Research and Future Studies 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 126 APPENDIX 143 ABSTRACT IN KOREAN (๊ตญ๋ฌธ ์ดˆ๋ก) 181Docto
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore