Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

John Sloan

dblp:218/7859 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-6105-6110ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-AI interaction · 44% Design research and methods · 44% User interface design and tools · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction › conversational systems
conversational interface
0.812024
Listening to the Voices: Describing Ethical Caveats of Conversational User Interfaces According to Experts and Frequent Users · CHI 2024
Design research and methods
design ethics
0.812024
Listening to the Voices: Describing Ethical Caveats of Conversational User Interfaces According to Experts and Frequent Users · CHI 2024
User interface design and tools › user interface design
dark patterns
0.212024
Listening to the Voices: Describing Ethical Caveats of Conversational User Interfaces According to Experts and Frequent Users · CHI 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

thematic analysis · 0.8interviews · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Listening to the Voices: Describing Ethical Caveats of Conversational User Interfaces According to Experts and Frequent Users
abstract
Advances in natural language processing and understanding have led to a rapid growth in the popularity of conversational user interfaces (CUIs). While CUIs introduce novel benefits, they also yield risks that may exploit people’s trust. Although research looking at unethical design deployed through graphical user interfaces (GUIs) established a thorough understanding of so-called dark patterns, there is a need to continue this discourse within the CUI community to understand potentially problematic interactions. Addressing this gap, we interviewed 27 participants from three cohorts: researchers, practitioners, and frequent users of CUIs. Applying thematic analysis, we construct five themes reflecting each cohort’s insights about ethical design challenges and introduce the CUI Expectation Cycle, bridging system capabilities and user expectations while considering each theme’s ethical caveats. This research aims to inform future development of CUIs to consider ethical constraints while adopting a human-centred approach.
Thomas Eßmeyer, Orla Cooney, Anna-Maria Meck, Marion Bartl, Gian-Luca Savino, Philip R. Doyle, Diego Garaialde, Leigh Clark, John Sloan, Nina Wenig, Rainer Malaka, Jasmin Niess
CHI9
2022 Using the LARA Little Prince to compare human and TTS audio quality
abstract
A popular idea in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is to use multimodal annotated texts, with annotations typically including embedded audio and translations, to support L2 learning through reading. An important question is how to create good quality audio, which can be done either through human recording or by a Text-To-Speech (TTS) engine. We may reasonably expect TTS to be quicker and easier, but human to be of higher quality. Here, we report a study using the open source LARA platform and ten languages. Samples of audio totalling about five minutes, representing the same four passages taken from LARA versions of Saint-Exupèry’s “Le petit prince”, were provided for each language in both human and TTS form; the passages were chosen to instantiate the 2x2 cross product of the conditions dialogue, not-dialogue and humour, not-humour. 251 subjects used a web form to compare human and TTS versions of each item and rate the voices as a whole. For the three languages where TTS did best, English, French and Irish, the evidence from this study and the previous one it extended suggest that TTS audio is now pedagogically adequate and roughly comparable with a non-professional human voice in terms of exemplifying correct pronunciation and prosody. It was however still judged substantially less natural and less pleasant to listen to. No clear evidence was found to support the hypothesis that dialogue and humour pose special problems for TTS. All data and software will be made freely available.
Elham Akhlaghi, Ingibjörg Iðha Auðhunardóttir, Anna Baczkowska, Branislav Bédi, Hakeem Beedar, Harald Berthelsen, Cathy Chua, Catia Cucchiarini, Hanieh Habibi, Ivana Horváthová, Junta Ikeda, Christèle Maizonniaux, Neasa Ní Chiaráin, Chadi Raheb, Manny Rayner, John Sloan, Nikos Tsourakis, Chunlin Yao
LREC16