Toward Faceted Skill Recommendation in Intelligent Personal Assistants
Authors
Research continuously shows that, despite the wide range of skills developed for Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs), users tend to engage with only a small number of them. One reason for this discrepancy is the issue of skill discoverability, which is commonly addressed through conversational recommendations. Current recommendation strategies, however, are limited due to information asymmetry, lack of interactivity, and an underdeveloped understanding of appropriate grouping of available skills. In this paper, we explore opportunities for interactive faceted skill recommendations using voice interfaces. Through an open card sort user study and semi-structured interviews, we identify and describe five facets driving users’ natural grouping of IPA skills (Thematic, Procedural, Cross-system, Environmental, and Recipient) and demonstrate the need for simultaneous support of these facets. We then discuss the implications of these findings for advancing the discoverability of IPA skills through the design of interactive conversational recommendations.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
Research Questions
3- What intuitive categorization attributes do users use when classifying intelligent voice assistant skills?Category: Conversational and Dialogue-Based RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- How can users' categorization intuitions be combined to design multidimensional categorization models supporting skill recommendation?Category: Conversational and Dialogue-Based RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- Can dialogue-based recommendation interaction models improve skill discoverability and UX?Category: Conversational and Dialogue-Based RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
Practical Problems
1- Smart speaker skills are numerous, but users struggle to find useful ones.Category: Conversational and Dialogue-Based RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)