I agree with a lot of this, but not all. I'd like to add 3 thoughts.
First, you need to know your user. Yes, personalisation - use names, ask relevant questions - but it's more than that. Do they go through this process every day/week/month, or are they new to it? Did they have issues last time, or should we expect minimal intervention? Are they talking/typing/clicking? What device are they on? This all makes a difference to how the user wants to complete the task - their objective.
Second, what about the organisation's objective? Is this an automated interaction so basically free for the organisation, and can take as long as the user needs? Is this an opportunity to improve the relationship or customer loyalty, or just a functional interaction like a balance check or a password reset? Remember that friction is another word for stickiness - you can't have one without the other, and sometimes we want stickiness.
Third, speed may be important to customers - but convenience is probably more important. While I agree that flow can make an interaction feel convenient, and speed is then less important, once you lose the convenience (say by too long a greeting or sign-off, or too much Clippy-style "Sure, I can help you with that" fluff), the ease of flow for the user is lost and frustration can quickly follow.
Great reply. I think we're on the same page for most of your comments. Flow is not the same for everyone, so you basically need to know what gets specific people in flow. If they are highly motivated customers and check in with the assistant daily, then it's very different than when a vulnerable customer has to ask about a complicated process once in their lives.
The Conversational Action Model allows you to think about what Desire, Ease, and Invitation look like per customer. And then you can design the system accordingly. Sometimes it will be the same for 80 percent of customers. Sometimes everyone is different. Sometimes flow is a long process. Sometimes it's the absence of the process altogether.
I basically write from perspective of support cases at larger enterprises. So generally, we're looking for 3 things: automation rates, satisfaction, and cost to serve. In this context, I have yet to find a brand would say: "let them try and figure it out as long as they have to, it's basically free anyway"
On your third point, I think what you're saying is there are no shortcuts in design. Just adding a few of those filler phrases around without truly understanding why you might use them, is a waste of everybody's good intentions. It reminds me of bots a few years ago. You would ask about your bill and it would try to tell you a joke, just to show how much fun they had creating. it. :)
I agree with a lot of this, but not all. I'd like to add 3 thoughts.
First, you need to know your user. Yes, personalisation - use names, ask relevant questions - but it's more than that. Do they go through this process every day/week/month, or are they new to it? Did they have issues last time, or should we expect minimal intervention? Are they talking/typing/clicking? What device are they on? This all makes a difference to how the user wants to complete the task - their objective.
Second, what about the organisation's objective? Is this an automated interaction so basically free for the organisation, and can take as long as the user needs? Is this an opportunity to improve the relationship or customer loyalty, or just a functional interaction like a balance check or a password reset? Remember that friction is another word for stickiness - you can't have one without the other, and sometimes we want stickiness.
Third, speed may be important to customers - but convenience is probably more important. While I agree that flow can make an interaction feel convenient, and speed is then less important, once you lose the convenience (say by too long a greeting or sign-off, or too much Clippy-style "Sure, I can help you with that" fluff), the ease of flow for the user is lost and frustration can quickly follow.
Great reply. I think we're on the same page for most of your comments. Flow is not the same for everyone, so you basically need to know what gets specific people in flow. If they are highly motivated customers and check in with the assistant daily, then it's very different than when a vulnerable customer has to ask about a complicated process once in their lives.
The Conversational Action Model allows you to think about what Desire, Ease, and Invitation look like per customer. And then you can design the system accordingly. Sometimes it will be the same for 80 percent of customers. Sometimes everyone is different. Sometimes flow is a long process. Sometimes it's the absence of the process altogether.
I basically write from perspective of support cases at larger enterprises. So generally, we're looking for 3 things: automation rates, satisfaction, and cost to serve. In this context, I have yet to find a brand would say: "let them try and figure it out as long as they have to, it's basically free anyway"
On your third point, I think what you're saying is there are no shortcuts in design. Just adding a few of those filler phrases around without truly understanding why you might use them, is a waste of everybody's good intentions. It reminds me of bots a few years ago. You would ask about your bill and it would try to tell you a joke, just to show how much fun they had creating. it. :)