CS474: Human Computer Interaction - Voice Prompts (100 Points)

Assignment Goals

The goals of this assignment are:
  1. To write a program that uses voice prompts for engagement
  2. To consider the affordances and signifiers necessary to implement a voice system
  3. To consider and mitigate the accessibility challenges when combining voice and text interaction

Background Reading and References

Please refer to the following readings and examples offering templates to help get you started:

The Assignment

In this assignment [1], you will incorporate the Speech Recognition for Voice Prompts program we explored in class into a user application. Specifically, you will write a program to solve one of two problems:

  • Find a common time to meet with a group of people, given a text file containing their weekly availabilities
  • Play a role-playing game in which users explore a maze of connected rooms (use a dictionary or hash table structure to manage your collection of rooms), encounter conflicts, and obtain treasure

Your solution should utilize only a voice modality. In other words, no text should be displayed to the screen (or, if it is, it should not be relied upon by the user to operate the program). Careful consideration should be given to the workflow of the use case: I suggest creating a flowchart prior to implementing your solution that describes what, how, and when you will obtain feedback from the user at each step in your program. The goal is to create a seamless experience for the user without requiring a keyboard, mouse, or visual cues. Specifically, there are a few considerations that you should keep in mind and document:

  • How will you indicate to the user that you are ready for some kind of response? What clear, consise prompts would you give to the user at particular points in the program?
  • How will you handle speech recognition errors? The library we are using allows for probabilistic translation, which you should use to try to automatically resolve ambiguities, but it would be good to re-prompt the user and verify information at each step (especially if the translation has a low confidence).
  • The speech recognition software might pick up its own prompts during recognition: how might you address this?
  • How should you configure the speech recognition library with appropriate delays to pick up your user’s responses, given your expectation of the duration of their input?

I strongly recommend running your program with your classmates to obtain feedback. Pay particular attention to the way in which they use the program, and look for “mistakes” that they make along the way. Don’t tell them anything, but consider instead that these “mistakes” may be ambiguities in your program that you can address. Obtain feedback from them at the end, and document and consider it in any revisions you might make.

In addition to your implementation, be sure to include a LaTeX design report in academic journal format (you can use Overleaf for this purpose) that describes your initial design, rationale, stakeholder evaluation, and any subsequent revisions you made from your stakeholder input.

  1. Adapted from Dr. Alvin Grissom’s 2020 HCI course ↩

Submission

In your submission, please include answers to any questions asked on the assignment page in your README file. If you wrote code as part of this assignment, please describe your design, approach, and implementation in your README file as well. Finally, include answers to the following questions:
  • Describe what you did, how you did it, what challenges you encountered, and how you solved them.
  • Please answer any questions found throughout the narrative of this assignment.
  • If collaboration with a buddy was permitted, did you work with a buddy on this assignment? If so, who? If not, do you certify that this submission represents your own original work?
  • Please identify any and all portions of your submission that were not originally written by you (for example, code originally written by your buddy, or anything taken or adapted from a non-classroom resource). It is always OK to use your textbook and instructor notes; however, you are certifying that any portions not designated as coming from an outside person or source are your own original work.
  • Approximately how many hours it took you to finish this assignment (I will not judge you for this at all...I am simply using it to gauge if the assignments are too easy or hard)?
  • Your overall impression of the assignment. Did you love it, hate it, or were you neutral? One word answers are fine, but if you have any suggestions for the future let me know.
  • Any other concerns that you have. For instance, if you have a bug that you were unable to solve but you made progress, write that here. The more you articulate the problem the more partial credit you will receive (it is fine to leave this blank).

Assignment Rubric

Description Pre-Emerging (< 50%) Beginning (50%) Progressing (85%) Proficient (100%)
Human-Centric Design (20%) A trivial application of the modality is provided without regard to proper signifiers or affordances to facilitate human interaction Some consideration is given to the manner by which a voice modality is incorporated into the program, but it is not clear at all times to the user what to do and how to interact The user is able to interact with the program using the voice modality in most cases, with a few minor ambiguities that could be identified through additional testing The user experience is enhanced by the use of a voice modality
Design Report (20%) No design report is included A design report is included that describes the approach taken to solving the problem and incorporating the voice modality in a trivial way A design report is included that describes the approach taken to solving the problem and incorporating the voice modality in a manner that carefully considers the problem from the perspective of one stakeholder A design report is included that describes the approach taken to solving the problem and incorporating the voice modality through documented discussions and test cases with a variety of stakeholders
Algorithm Implementation (30%) The algorithm fails on the test inputs due to major issues, or the program fails to compile and/or run The algorithm fails on the test inputs due to one or more minor issues The algorithm is implemented to solve the problem correctly according to given test inputs, but would fail if executed in a general case due to a minor issue or omission in the algorithm design or implementation A reasonable algorithm is implemented to solve the problem which correctly solves the problem according to the given test inputs, and would be reasonably expected to solve the problem in the general case
Code Quality and Documentation (20%) Code commenting and structure are absent, or code structure departs significantly from best practice, and/or the code departs significantly from the style guide Code commenting and structure is limited in ways that reduce the readability of the program, and/or there are minor departures from the style guide Code documentation is present that re-states the explicit code definitions, and/or code is written that mostly adheres to the style guide Code is documented at non-trivial points in a manner that enhances the readability of the program, and code is written according to the style guide
Writeup and Submission (10%) An incomplete submission is provided The program is submitted, but not according to the directions in one or more ways (for example, because it is lacking a readme writeup or missing answers to written questions) The program is submitted according to the directions with a minor omission or correction needed, including a readme writeup describing the solution and answering nearly all questions posed in the instructions The program is submitted according to the directions, including a readme writeup describing the solution and answering all questions posed in the instructions

Please refer to the Style Guide for code quality examples and guidelines.