Marco Aurisicchio

dblp:63/6535 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0002-1119-4336ORCID · corroborated

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Theory of computation · 1

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
2 papers
User interface design and tools · 34% Human-AI interaction · 30% Usability and user experience research · 30%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction › conversational agents
conversational agent design
0.512021
Designing Conversational Agents: A Self-Determination Theory Approach · CHI 2021
User interface design and tools
design guidelines
0.512021
Designing Conversational Agents: A Self-Determination Theory Approach · CHI 2021
Usability and user experience research
self-determination theory
0.512021
Designing Conversational Agents: A Self-Determination Theory Approach · CHI 2021
User interface design and tools
user experience design
0.512021
Designing Conversational Agents: A Self-Determination Theory Approach · CHI 2021
Human-AI interaction
conversational agents
0.412019
Understanding Affective Experiences with Conversational Agents · CHI 2019
Usability and user experience research › user affect
emotional experience
0.412019
Understanding Affective Experiences with Conversational Agents · CHI 2019
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
argumentation
0.212016
Discontinuity-Free Decision Support with Quantitative Argumentation Debates · KR 2016
Design research and methods › user-centered design
user needs
0.112021
Designing Conversational Agents: A Self-Determination Theory Approach · CHI 2021

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

self-determination theory · 0.5interview study · 0.5survey study · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Designing Conversational Agents: A Self-Determination Theory Approach
abstract
Bringing positive experiences to users is one of the key goals when designing conversational agents (CAs). Yet we still lack an understanding of users’ underlying needs to achieve positive experiences and how to support them in design. This research first applies Self-Determination Theory in an interview study to explore how users’ needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness could be supported or undermined in CA experiences. Ten guidelines are then derived from the interview findings. The key findings demonstrate that: competence is affected by users’ knowledge of the CA capabilities and effectiveness of the conversation; autonomy is influenced by flexibility of the conversation, personalisation of the experiences, and control over user data; regarding relatedness, users still have concerns over integrating social features into CAs. The guidelines recommend how to inform users about the system capabilities, design effective and socially appropriate conversations, and support increased system intelligence, customisation, and data transparency.
Xi Yang 0010, Marco Aurisicchio
CHI2
2019 Understanding Affective Experiences with Conversational Agents
abstract
While previous studies of Conversational Agents (e.g. Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa and Cortana) have focused on evaluating usability and exploring capabilities of these systems, little work has examined users' affective experiences. In this paper we present a survey study with 171 participants to examine CA users' affective experiences. Specifically, we present four major usage scenarios, users' affective responses in these scenarios, and the factors which influenced the affective responses. We found that users' overall experience was positive with interest being the most salient positive emotion. Affective responses differed depending on the scenarios. Both pragmatic and hedonic qualities influenced affect. The factors underlying pragmatic quality are: helpfulness, proactivity, fluidity, seamlessness and responsiveness. The factors underlying hedonic quality are: comfort in human-machine conversation, pride of using cutting-edge technology, fun during use, perception of having a human-like assistant, concern about privacy and fear of causing distraction.
Xi Yang 0010, Marco Aurisicchio, Weston L. Baxter
CHI2
2016 Discontinuity-Free Decision Support with Quantitative Argumentation Debates
Antonio Rago 0001, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio, Pietro Baroni
KR3