A recurring theme in theorizing about human-computer interaction is the duality of the following two views on the computer:
Ad 2. Alternatively, there is a trend, in which goal-oriented
and intentional behavior is explicitly introduced in so-called
intelligent agents
, which behave according to a logic containing
``beliefs'' about the world and about the goals of the user. Synergistic
with this trend is the quickly growing capability with which human-like
output (speech, faces, movement) can be more or less faithfully produced by
computers. Critics of this latter approach pejoratively call it
``animism'' and point out that user-friendly design is much more helped by
giving the user the idea that he/she is fully in control of the situation,
rather than having to negotiate with a potentially uncooperative
anthropomorphic servant. However, the anthropomorphic dialogue may also be
compelling, and the metaphors of ``partner'', ``colleague'' or ``coach''
may be used to make clear to the user what are the characteristics of the
dialogue [344], in terms of protocol, attitude, and etiquette.
Rather than deciding a priori for either one of these basic interface philosophies, different types of interaction and different application conditions must be defined within this project which are suited for either the Computer-as-Tool or the Computer-as-Dialogue-Partner approach, possibly also combining aspects of both approaches where possible. As an example: Whereas it may be acceptable to a user to organize the planning of daily activities in a dialogue with an anthropomorphical partner, it is equally unacceptable to use a human-style dialogue in detailed low-level aspects of text editing or computer programming.
Within the project of the concepts introduced here will be substantially refined.
Esprit Project 8579/MIAMI (Schomaker et al., '95)