skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300233acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction

Published: 02 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) frame opportunities and challenges for user interface design. Principles for human-AI interaction have been discussed in the human-computer interaction community for over two decades, but more study and innovation are needed in light of advances in AI and the growing uses of AI technologies in human-facing applications. We propose 18 generally applicable design guidelines for human-AI interaction. These guidelines are validated through multiple rounds of evaluation including a user study with 49 design practitioners who tested the guidelines against 20 popular AI-infused products. The results verify the relevance of the guidelines over a spectrum of interaction scenarios and reveal gaps in our knowledge, highlighting opportunities for further research. Based on the evaluations, we believe the set of design guidelines can serve as a resource to practitioners working on the design of applications and features that harness AI technologies, and to researchers interested in the further development of human-AI interaction design principles.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (paper003.zip)
The auxiliary material consists of a single zip file containing a PDF of the paper's appendix. In this appendix, we illustrate each of our 18 human-AI interaction design guidelines with three example applications and three example violations provided by our user study participants when testing the guidelines against popular AI-infused products. For each example we indicate the product category the participant was testing, but obscure the specific product names.

References

[1]
Alexa. 2018. Top sites in the United States. Retrieved July, 2018 from https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US
[2]
Kathy Baxter. 2017. How to Meet User Expectations for Artificial Intelligence. Medium. Retrieved September, 2018 from https://medium.com/salesforce-ux/how-to-meet-userexpectations-for-artificial-intelligence-a51d3c82af6
[3]
Victoria Bellotti and Keith Edwards. 2001. Intelligibility and Accountability: Human Considerations in Context-Aware Systems. Human-- Computer Interaction 16, 2--4 (2001), 193--212.
[4]
Andrea Bunt, Matthew Lount, and Catherine Lauzon. 2012. Are Explanations Always Important?: A Study of Deployed, Low-cost Intelligent Interactive Systems. In Proc. IUI '12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 169-- 178.
[5]
Margaret Burnett, Simone Stumpf, Jamie Macbeth, Stephann Makri, Laura Beckwith, Irwin Kwan, Anicia Peters, and William Jernigan. 2016. GenderMag: A method for evaluating software's gender inclusiveness. Interacting with Computers 28, 6 (2016), 760--787.
[6]
comScore. 2018. Latest rankings. Retrieved July, 2018 from https: //www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings
[7]
Maartje de Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan van Dijk. 2017. Why Do They Refuse to Use My Robot?: Reasons for Non-Use Derived from a Long-Term Home Study. In Proc. HRI '17. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 224--233.
[8]
Defy Media. 2015. Damn You Auto Correct! Retrieved September, 2018 from http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/
[9]
T. Deuschel and T. Scully. 2016. On the Importance of Spatial Perception for the Design of Adaptive User Interfaces. In 2016 IEEE 10th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO). 70--79.
[10]
Anind Dey, Jennifer Mankoff, Gregory Abowd, and Scott Carter. 2002. Distributed Mediation of Ambiguous Context in Aware Environments. In Proc. UIST '02. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 121--130.
[11]
Leah Findlater and Joanna McGrenere. 2004. A Comparison of Static, Adaptive, and Adaptable Menus. In Proc. CHI '04. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 89--96.
[12]
Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Mary Czerwinski, Desney S. Tan, and Daniel S. Weld. 2006. Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces. In Proc. AVI '06. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 201--208.
[13]
Krzysztof Z Gajos, Katherine Everitt, Desney S Tan, Mary Czerwinski, and Daniel S Weld. 2008. Predictability and accuracy in adaptive user interfaces. In CHI. ACM, 1271--1274.
[14]
Jonathan L. Herlocker, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining Collaborative Filtering Recommendations. In Proc. CSCW '00. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 241--250.
[15]
Setia Hermawati and Glyn Lawson. 2016. Establishing usability heuristics for heuristics evaluation in a specifc domain: Is there a consensus? Applied Ergonomics 56 (2016), 34 -- 51.
[16]
Kristina Höök. 2000. Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting with Computers 12, 4 (2000), 409--426.
[17]
Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces. In Proc. CHI '99. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 159--166.
[18]
Eric Horvitz, Jack Breese, David Heckerman, David Hovel, and Koos Rommelse. 1998. The Lumière Project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users. In Proc. UAI '98. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 256--265.
[19]
IDC Corporate USA. 2018. IDC: The premier global market intelligence firm. Retrieved September, 2018 from https://www.idc.com/
[20]
Anthony Jameson. 2008. Adaptive interfaces and agents. In The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (2nd ed.), Andrew Sears and Julie A. Jacko (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 433--458.
[21]
Todd Kulesza, Margaret Burnett, Weng-Keen Wong, and Simone Stumpf. 2015. Principles of Explanatory Debugging to Personalize Interactive Machine Learning. In Proc. IUI '15. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 126--137.
[22]
Chia-Jung Lee, Jaime Teevan, and Sebastian de la Chica. 2014. Characterizing Multi-click Search Behavior and the Risks and Opportunities of Changing Results During Use. In Proc. SIGIR '14. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 515--524.
[23]
Brian Y. Lim and Anind K. Dey. 2009. Assessing Demand for Intelligibility in Context-aware Applications. In Proc. UbiComp '09. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 195--204.
[24]
Josh Lovejoy. 2018. The UX of AI. Google Design. Retrieved September, 2018 from https://design.google/library/ux-ai/
[25]
Josh Lovejoy and Jess Holbrook. 2017. Human-Centered Machine Learning. 7 steps to stay focused on the user when designing with ML. Medium. Retrieved September, 2018 from https://medium.com/google-design/human-centered-machinelearning-a770d10562cd
[26]
Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. "Like Having a Really Bad PA": The Gulf Between User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. In Proc. CHI '16. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5286--5297.
[27]
Aaron Maitland and Stanley Presser. 2016. How Accurately Do Different Evaluation Methods Predict the Reliability of Survey Questions? Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 4, 3 (2016), 362--381.
[28]
Joseph A Maxwell. 2012. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Vol. 41. Sage publications.
[29]
Chelsea Myers, Anushay Furqan, Jessica Nebolsky, Karina Caro, and Jichen Zhu. 2018. Patterns for How Users Overcome Obstacles in Voice User Interfaces. In Proc. CHI '18. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 7 pages.
[30]
Jakob Nielsen. 1992. Finding Usability Problems Through Heuristic Evaluation. In Proc. CHI '92. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373--380.
[31]
Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces. In Proc. CHI '90. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 249--256.
[32]
D.A. Norman. 1988. The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New York.
[33]
Donald A. Norman. 1994. How Might People Interact with Agents. Commun. ACM 37, 7 (July 1994), 68--71.
[34]
Kristen Olson. 2010. An examination of questionnaire evaluation by expert reviewers. Field Methods 22, 4 (2010), 295--318.
[35]
Martin Porcheron, Joel E. Fischer, Stuart Reeves, and Sarah Sharples. 2018. Voice Interfaces in Everyday Life. In Proc. CHI '18. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 640, 12 pages.
[36]
Emilee Rader, Kelley Cotter, and Janghee Cho. 2018. Explanations As Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency. In Proc. CHI '18. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 103, 13 pages.
[37]
Ruth Ravichandran, Sang-Wha Sien, Shwetak N. Patel, Julie A. Kientz, and Laura R. Pina. 2017. Making Sense of Sleep Sensors: How Sleep Sensing Technologies Support and Undermine Sleep Health. In Proc. CHI '17. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6864--6875.
[38]
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proc. KDD '16. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1135--1144.
[39]
Katharine Schwab. 2017. 10 Principles For Design In The Age Of AI. Retrieved September, 2018 from https://www.fastcompany.com/3067632/10-principles-for-designin-the-age-of-ai
[40]
SimilarWeb. 2018. Top websites ranking. Retrieved July, 2018 from https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/united-states
[41]
Jack Stewart. 2018. Why Tesla's Autopilot Can't See a Stopped Firetruck. Retrieved September, 2018 from https: //www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/
[42]
Erica Virtue. 2017. Designing with AI.
[43]
Jolita Vveinhardt and Evelina Gulbovaite. 2016. Expert evaluation of diagnostic instrument for personal and organizational value congruence. Journal of business ethics 136, 3 (2016), 481--501.
[44]
Daniel S Weld and Gagan Bansal. 2018. Intelligible Artificial Intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04263 (2018).
[45]
Rayoung Yang, Eunice Shin, Mark W. Newman, and Mark S. Ackerman. 2015. When Fitness Trackers Don'T 'Fit': End-user Difficulties in the Assessment of Personal Tracking Device Accuracy. In Proc. UbiComp '15. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 623--634.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
May 2019
9077 pages
ISBN:9781450359702
DOI:10.1145/3290605
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 May 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Badges

  • Honorable Mention

Author Tags

  1. ai-infused systems
  2. design guidelines
  3. human-ai interaction

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

CHI '19
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 703 of 2,958 submissions, 24%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025
ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
April 26 - May 1, 2025
Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6,388
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)655
Reflects downloads up to 07 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media