Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

azumbrunnen.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

#91

Post by matsemann »

chrisandchris wrote: post #88
Zaheer wrote: post #4

I'm not sure why it took so long for people to recognize this. An overwhelming majority of chatbots I've used are utter rubbish and are better served through a regular interface (search, directory listing, etc). Everyone dreads call menus / phone trees - chatbots are largely the same except there are easier & better UX alternatives in an online medium.

I had to call UPS because of a wrong delivery state a few weeks ago. I ended about in their automated phone system where you don‘t anymore press numbers but rather say what you would like. There‘s never an option to talk to a human. I ended up googling and found out a secret keyword to talk to an agent who one can directly say after choosing a language. I never have been connected faster to a human when calling a lar…

Just say shibboleet (jk)

Re: My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

#93

Post by moron4hire »

dheera wrote: post #8

I absolutely despise those pop-up "Can I help you" boxes on product websites (usually Intercom). It completely disrupts my flow as a reader in trying to understand the product. That attention disruption got so bad I blocked Intercom and their ilk via injected CSS rules. I really want to take it a step further and write a plug in to interface a chat bot with the human on the other end and waste their time so sites beg…

They are the internet equivalent of the retail store clerk coming up to you to ask if they can help you. No. Go away. I'm here for a transaction, not a relationship.

Re: My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

#96

Post by thrav »

kdtop wrote: post #90

The problem with chatbots is one of an unfulfilled promise, an unrealistic setting of user expectations. An empty Google search window doesn't pretend to be a human being -- although it is actually very powerful. Clippy, on the other hand, has a human face and pretends to be an intelligent agent, only to fail. So chatbots, when seeming to act like a human via natural language, are held in the user's mind to a higher…

This is not true of all ChatBots. In fact, some companies outright discourage using theirs as such.

USAA, for example, makes it abundantly clear that you’re talking to a robot, before beginning the conversation and provides multiple choice options for common support flows. I’m actually a big fan of theirs for things like travel notifications or ATM withdrawal limit increases.

Re: My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

#97

Post by capableweb »

mard wrote: post #21
Ennea wrote: post #3

I'd just like to point out how absolutely terrible that simulated mouse cursor on that site is. Feels very sluggish and weird. Please don't do this.

The cursor in input field at the bottom is blinking too, making user think it's focused when in reality is not. It's quite disappointing that it took a Google UX design lead to come up with something like this.

Disappointing? At first, I was thinking that this designer was just a junior designer and they didn't know better, maybe learning how to implement designs so it's fine, we can't all be pros for day one.

But now when I realize that this was made from someone at Google's UX team, it all makes sense. Interacting with this site feels exactly like interacting with the typical Google property, where all standards and expectations gets thrown out for something that probably looks pretty on the designers screen but is 80% off for everyone else.

Re: My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

#98

Post by moobsen »

So what you are saying is today's chatbots are useless? I agree in most cases, from my limited experience.

But a chatbot which actually answers my questions would be great. I hope what we are seeing is the Through of Disillusionment[1] and soon will get support chatbots that are actually helpful.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle#/media/File:Gartner...

Re: My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

#99

Post by fucknugget »

LukaD wrote: post #23
Ennea wrote: post #3

I'd just like to point out how absolutely terrible that simulated mouse cursor on that site is. Feels very sluggish and weird. Please don't do this.

The site is an absolute usability nightmare. Why can't I have a scrollbar?

I was initially distracted by the cursor, thought it was horrible, then tried to read the text but realised I could barely focus on it give the ridiculous size. Just awful.

Re: My chatbot is dead – Why yours should probably be too

#100

Post by mrkwse »

partyboat1586 wrote: post #59
mrkwse wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As developers who never need help, we tend to forget that some people might do I think one of the most regularly overlooked areas in which people may need help is through accessibility features. I'm not neurodiverse myself, but things that pop-up and animate can be problematic for those that are. Having the option there may be useful, but the intrusive pop-ups that the previous comment referred to do not seem usefu…

Which neruological condition(s) cause sensitivity to popup animations? Not questioning the validity of the claim just interested to learn more.

I haven't been able to find anything specifically around popup animations, but the BBC's Cape initiative discusses some of the stimulations etc. that can be intrusive for those with neurodivergent conditions such as autism spectrum condition, ADHD, etc.

I've found that most of these chatbots will use sound alerts to draw attention, and Cape's environmental toolkit definitely references these. While a lot of the content in this toolkit is for physical environments, a lot of it will transfer to digital product UX in terms of stimuli etc.

Cape: https://bbc.github.io/uxd-cognitive/

Post reply on HN