한국HCI학회논문지 (Journal of the HCI Society of Korea)

  • 제14권1호
  • /
  • Pages.35-43
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1976-0671(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2671-7611(eISSN)
한국HCI학회 (The HCI Society of Korea)
권호 표지

챗봇 기반 인터페이스의 상호작용성과 사용 모드가 사용자 경험에 미치는 영향

Effects of Interactivity and Usage Mode on User Experience in Chatbot Interface

  • 백현지 (성균관대학교 인터랙션사이언스학과) ;
  • 김상연 (성균관대학교 인터랙션사이언스학과) ;
  • 이상원 (성균관대학교 인터랙션사이언스학과)
  • 투고 : 2018.10.22
  • 심사 : 2019.01.04
  • 발행 : 2019.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 챗봇 기반 인터페이스 이용 시 상호작용성과 사용 모드가 어떻게 사용자 경험에 영향을 미치는지에 대하여 알아보았다. 챗봇은 인공지능 및 자연어 처리 기술의 향상에 힘입어 빠른 속도로 상용화되고 있다. 하지만 대부분의 연구가 챗봇의 성능을 높이기 위한 기술적 측면에만 집중된 실정으로, 사용자 경험 측면의 연구가 시급하다. 이에 본 연구에서는 챗봇 인터페이스의 사용자 경험 양상을 살피기 위하여 인터페이스의 '상호작용성' 수준과 사용자의 인터페이스 상황인 '사용 모드'가 어떻게 사용자의 만족, 몰입, 지각된 유용성에 영향을 미치는지 살펴보았다. 연구 결과 상호작용성은 그 수준이 높을수록 더 높은 사용자 경험을 환기했다. 또한 사용 모드는 주 효과를 보이지는 않았지만, 상호작용성과 몰입에 대하여 상호작용 효과를 나타냈는데, 구체적으로 사용자의 인터페이스 사용 목표가 뚜렷한 상황 속에서 상호작용성이 높을 경우 몰입이 최대로 올라간다는 결과가 도출되었다. 이를 통해 긍정적인 사용자 경험을 이끌어 낼 수 있는 챗봇 인터페이스를 디자인하기 위해서는 상호작용성을 반드시 고려해야 하며, 구체적 목적을 수행하길 원하는 사용자에게는 쉽게 과업을 달성할 수 있도록 추가적 기능을 제공해야 한다는 사실을 밝혀내었다.

This study examines how interactivity and usage mode of a chatbot interface affects user experience. Chatbot has rapidly been commercialized in accordance with improvements in artificial intelligence and natural language processing. However, most of the researches have focused on the technical aspect to improve the performance of chatbots, and it is necessary to study user experience on a chatbot interface. In this article, we investigated how 'interactivity' of an interface and the 'usage mode' referring to situations of a user affect the satisfaction, flow, and perceived usefulness of a chatbot for exploring user experience. As the result, first, the higher level of interactivity, the higher user experience. Second, usage mode showed interaction effect with interactivity on flow, although it didn't show the main effect. In specific, when interactivity is high in usage mode, flow was the highest rather than other conditions. Thus, for designing better chatbot interfaces, it should be considered to increase the degree of interactivity, and for users to achieve a goal easily through various functions with high interactivity.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Yan, M., Castro, P., Cheng, P. and Ishakian, V. Building a Chatbot with Serverless Computing. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Mashups of Things and APIs. Trento, Italy. p. 5. 2016.
  2. 임화섭. MS "모든 것에 지능을......"......"앱은 가고 AI 시대 왔다"(종합). http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2016/03/31/0200000000AKR20160331005351091.HTML 2018.10.01.
  3. Constine, J. Facebook launches Messenger platform with chatbots. https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/12/agents-on-messenger October 5. 2018.
  4. Yoon, Y. Development of Smart Senior Classification Model based on Activity Profile Using Machine Learning Method. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society. 8(1). Korea Convergence Society. pp. 25-34. 2017. https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2017.8.1.025
  5. 지민구. 카카오, AI 개발 플랫폼 시범 서비스 출시. http://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/1RWWWHG8UR 2018.10.01.
  6. Hunt, E. Tay, Microsoft's AI chatbot, gets a crash course in racism from Twitter. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-ai-chatbot-gets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter October 1. 2018.
  7. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S. and Brown, J. Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research. 30(1). Sage publications. pp. 30-59. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202239025
  8. Sundar, S. S. Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. Oxford: University Press. pp. 89-102. 2007.
  9. Dou, X. User experience of mobile interactivity: How do mobile websites affect attitudes and relational outcomes?. Doctoral(Ph.D.) dissertations. The Pennsylvania State University. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2013.
  10. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q. and Bellur, S. Designing interactivity in media interfaces: A communications perspective. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, Georgia. pp. 2247-2256. 2010.
  11. Xu, Q. and Sundar, S. S. Lights, camera, music, interaction! Interactive persuasion in e-commerce. Communication Research. 41(2). Sage publications. pp. 282-308. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212439062
  12. Oh, J. and Sundar, S. S. How does interactivity persuade? An experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes. Journal of Communication. 65(2). Oxford University Press. pp. 213-236. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12147
  13. Rafaeli, S. From new media to communication. Sage annual review of communication research: Advancing communication science. 16. Sage publications. pp. 110-134. 1988.
  14. Rafaeli, S. and Sudweeks, F. Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2(4). Oxford University Press. 1997.
  15. Bellur-Thandaveshwara, S. Effects of interactivity, contingency and conversational tone on user responses to a web-based health application. Doctoral(Ph.D.) dissertations. The Pennsylvania State University. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2012.
  16. Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H. and Kim, H. S. Theoretical Importance of Contingency in Human-Computer Interaction. Communication Research. 43(5). Sage publications. pp. 595-625. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534962
  17. Hassenzahl, M. The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. Funology: From usability to enjoyment. In Blythe M., Overbeeke C., Monk A.F., Wright P.C. (Ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 31-42. 2003.
  18. van Schaik, P. and Ling, J. The role of context in perceptions of the aesthetics of web pages over time. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 67(1). Elsevier. pp. 79-89. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.012
  19. Nugaeva, C., Hug, M. and Opwis, K. Unblinding Internet Users to Online Ad Banners: The Effects of TaskOrientation and Context Congruence on Memory and Attitude. Master Thesis. University of Basel. Basel, Switzerland. 2012.
  20. Botha, A., Calteaux, K., Herselman, M., Grover, A. S. and Barnard, E. Mobile user experience for voice services: A theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mobile Communication for Development, M4D 2012. New Delhi, India. pp. 335-350. 2012.
  21. 김진우. Human Computer Interaction 개론. 파주: 안그라픽스. 2012.
  22. Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D. R. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of marketing. 58(3). American Marketing Association. pp. 53-66. 1994. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800304
  23. International Standard ISO 9241-11. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part II: Guidance on Usability. 1998.
  24. Bolton, R. N. A dynamic model of the duration of the customer's relationship with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing science. 17(1). Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. pp. 45-65. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.1.45
  25. Sundar, S. S. and Kim, J. Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising. 5(2). Taylor & Francis, Ltd. pp. 5-18. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2005.10722097
  26. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. New York: Harper and Row. 1990.
  27. Law, E. L. C., van Schaik, P. and Roto, V. Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 72(6). Elsevier. pp. 526-541. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006
  28. Ghani, J. A., Supnick, R. and Rooney, P. The Experience of Flow in Computer-mediated and in Face-to-face Groups. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 1991. New York, New York. pp. 229-237. 1991.
  29. Hoffman, D. and Novak, T. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing. 60(3). American Marketing Association. pp. 50-68. 1995. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251841
  30. Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S. and Munuera, J. L. Effects of interactivity in a web site: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising. 34(3).Taylor & Francis, Ltd. pp. 31-45. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639202
  31. Verkasalo, H., Lopez-Nicolos, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J. and Bouwman, H. Analysis of users and non-users of smartphone applications. Telematics and Informatics. 27(3). Elsevier. pp. 242-255. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2009.11.001
  32. Davis. F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 13(3). Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota. pp. 319-340. 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008