ANTHROPOMORPHIC VS NON-ANTHROPOMORPHIC USER

INTERFACE FEEDBACK FOR ONLINE HOTEL BOOKINGS

Pietro Murano, Anthony Gee

Computing Science and Engineering, University of Salford, Newton Building, Gt. Manchester, M5 4WT

Patrik O’Brian Holt

Interactive Systems Research Group, School of Computing, The Robert Gordon University, St. Andrew Street, Aberdeen

AB25 1HG, Scotland

Keywords: Anthropomorphism, User interface feedback, Evaluation.

Abstract: This paper describes an experiment and its results concerning research that has been going on for a number

of years in the area of anthropomorphic user interface feedback. The main aims of the research have been to

examine the effectiveness and user satisfaction of anthropomorphic feedback in various domains. The

results are of use to all interactive systems designers, particularly when dealing with issues of user interface

feedback design. There is currently some disagreement amongst computer scientists concerning the

suitability of such types of feedback. This research is working to resolve this disagreement and in turn can

help software houses to increase their profits by developing better user interfaces that will promote an

increase in sales. The experiment detailed, concerns the specific software domain of Online Factual

Delivery in the specific context of online hotel bookings. Anthropomorphic feedback was compared against

an equivalent non-anthropomorphic feedback. Statistically significant results were obtained suggesting that

the non-anthropomorphic feedback was more effective. The results for user satisfaction were however less

clear.

1 INTRODUCTION

User interfaces and the feedback given to users are

one of the most important aspects of any software

system. This is because if the user interface and the

feedback given is not usable, the users will either

give up using the system, will be less efficient in

using the system or will simply not enjoy using the

system. This in turn can seriously affect the success

of a software house and its sales. Also the growth

and complexity of modern day software systems, in

particular the tasks they are able to perform, results

in the continual requirement for more usable

interfaces to be developed.

The aim of this research is to aid in the

improvement of user interfaces for users which can

promote better sales for a software house. Specific

concentration is placed on comparing

anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic user

interfaces to address the issues of effectiveness and

user satisfaction.

There are various opinions amongst the computer

science community regarding the effectiveness and

user approval of anthropomorphic feedback at the

user interface. Some researchers are in favour of

anthropomorphism, e.g. Koda and Maes (1996),

Maes (1994), Laurel (1997), Agarwal (1999), Zue

(1999) and Takeuchi and Naito (1995) However,

some researchers are not generally in favour of

anthropomorphism in most circumstances e.g.

Shneiderman and Plaisant (2005). Each of these

researchers tends to base their opinions on various

studies conducted in the area. Due to the

inconclusive nature of the results of these studies,

there is the need for more work in this area to gain a

better understanding.

This research continues on from a number of

research studies conducted by Murano (2005, 2003,

2002a, 2002b, 2001a, 2001b) aiming to eventually

solve the issues of effectiveness and user satisfaction

of anthropomorphic feedback at the user interface.

In Murano (2002b) it was shown that in the domain

of software for in-depth learning, anthropomorphic

feedback was significantly more effective. The

157

Murano P., Gee A. and O’Brian Holt P. (2007).

ANTHROPOMORPHIC VS NON-ANTHROPOMORPHIC USER INTERFACE FEEDBACK FOR ONLINE HOTEL BOOKINGS.

In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - HCI, pages 157-163

DOI: 10.5220/0002375601570163

 SciTePress

results for user satisfaction were not so clear, but

participant preferences tended towards the

anthropomorphic feedback. This was specifically in

the context of English as a Foreign Language

pronunciation. Also in Murano (2002a) it was shown

that in the domain of software for online systems

usage, anthropomorphic feedback was significantly

more effective and preferred by users. This context

specifically involved the area of using UNIX

commands at the UNIX shell.

Specifically related to this paper, are the results in

Murano (2003). The paper investigated

anthropomorphic feedback in the context of online

factual delivery, using the area of direction finding

as the specific context. This paper showed with

statistically significant results, that non-

anthropomorphic feedback was more effective. The

results for user satisfaction were not so clear, but

participant preferences tended towards the non-

anthropomorphic feedback.

In Dehn and van Mulken (2000) it was suggested

that the context or domain of concern could

influence the effectiveness and user approval of

anthropomorphic interfaces. This research is

beginning to suggest with empirical evidence that

this could be the case. However, in order to make

sure that this really is the case, the authors are

investigating anthropomorphic feedback in different

domains, with the possibility of eventually

developing a taxonomy of feedbacks as suggested in

(Murano, 2005), for helping user interface designers

in their design decisions.

This paper therefore investigates the domain of

online factual delivery further, describing an

experiment set in this domain, using the context of

online hotel bookings to test the user interface

feedback. This context was chosen because it is a

fairly common activity for users of all kinds to carry

out over the Internet and was therefore considered to

be useful and realistic, whilst maintaining the theme

of the previous experiment conducted by Murano

(2003). As with the previous experiments,

effectiveness and user satisfaction were the aspects

being investigated. Effectiveness was defined by the

success rate in completing the tasks, a low error rate

whilst carrying out the tasks and a low rate of

hesitations/frustrations expressed by the participants

during the experiment. The user approval aspects

concerned the participants’ subjective opinions

regarding the user interface aspects. For this

experiment, the anthropomorphic feedback consisted

of an animated character supplied with MS Agent

2.0 (see Apparatus and Material section) called

‘Merlin’. The non-anthropomorphic feedback

consisted of guiding text. This was text of the kind

one would expect to see on a ‘real’ online hotel

booking site.

2 THE EXPERIMENT – HOTEL

BOOKINGS

2.1 Hypotheses

As stated in the previous section this research

concerns determining the effectiveness and user

satisfaction of anthropomorphic user interface

feedback in various contexts. Hence the following

hypotheses were derived:

H0a - There will be no difference in terms of user

satisfaction between the anthropomorphic feedback

(Merlin) and non-anthropomorphic feedback

(guiding text).

H0b - There will be no difference in terms of

effectiveness between the anthropomorphic

feedback and non-anthropomorphic feedback.

Positive Hypotheses:

H1a - The non-anthropomorphic (guiding text)

feedback will be more effective than the

anthropomorphic (Merlin) feedback.

H1b - Users will prefer the anthropomorphic

(Merlin) feedback rather than the non-

anthropomorphic (guiding text) feedback.

2.2 Pilot Testing

Before the main experiment was undertaken, a small

pilot test with 4 participants was conducted. The

main issues being considered in the pilot test were

the main workings of the prototype developed, the

environment to be used in the experiment and

exercising suitable control over the various variables

being tested (see Variables section). A further aspect

aided by the pilot test, was to determine a suitable

amount of time to be used for the experiment and to

test out the actual designed tasks.

2.3 Users

The initial recruitment of the participants took place

by means of a recruitment questionnaire. The

participants were carefully selected so as to have

similar profiles, therefore reducing the possibility of

collecting invalid data. Initially 40 individuals were

selected, but only 20, with similar profiles, were

actually used in the experiment. The main aspects of

the profiles of the participants used were similar in

the following ways:

ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

158

• All participants had similar computing

knowledge. They were not complete beginners

or ‘power’ users. Complete novice users were

not selected as they would have required basic

training in the concepts of devices and

Windows systems. Experienced participants

were not used in the experiment as it was

decided that such users would in reality not

require feedback of the sort being tested in

their every day usage patterns.

• All the participants were less than 36 years of

age with English as their primary language.

2.4 Experimental and Task Design

For the purpose of the given experiment a between

users design method was deployed. 10 of the

participants were assigned to Group A, and the

remaining 10 participants were assigned to Group B.

Group A participants tested the anthropomorphic

feedback (MS Merlin) as part of their experiment

session.

Group B participants tested the non-

anthropomorphic feedback (guiding text) as part of

their experiment session.

The experiment involved each participant

attempting the following tasks:

• Task 1 required participants to make a specific

booking for a hotel and theatre performance.

Participants would use the prototype online

hotel reservation user interface to make the

bookings according to specific details

supplied.

• Task 2 required participants to cancel the

booking they had just made using the hotel

reservation user interface.

The tasks outlined are representative of realistic

tasks commonly carried out by users booking a hotel

or holiday, using the Internet. For tasks 1 and 2 all

participants were initially shown a brief tutorial

explaining how to book and cancel a hotel using the

interface. The content of the tutorials shown was

identical regardless of the feedback being given to

ensure there was no bias.

2.5 Variables

For the purpose of the experiment the associated

independent variables were determined as being the

two different methods of feedback that were

available:

• Animated Microsoft Merlin with speech and

text (anthropomorphic).

• Standard guiding text (non-anthropomorphic).

The dependent variables were the participants’

performance in dealing with the hotel bookings and

their subjective opinions.

The dependent measures were that the performance

was measured by counting the number of errors

incurred, observing whether participants completed

the tasks and counting the number of times

hesitation and frustration were manifested. These

factors were then used in a scoring formula (see

Scoring section below for a description of the

formula). Specifically performance was measured in

the following manner:

• Tasks carried out correctly with no errors. The

participants were given a task sheet with

specific instructions regarding the booking

they should make (e.g. given dates and number

of guests etc.). Deviation from this was

considered to be a complete task but with some

incorrect details.

• Tasks completed. This refers to the overall

successful completion of the two tasks in the

experiment.

• Number of times participants showed signs of

hesitation. These were only clearly observable

participant reactions, such as manifesting a

puzzled expression or asking for help.

• Number of times participants showed signs of

frustration. These were only clearly observable

user reactions, such as making some remark

about the user interface which had clearly

caused the user some ‘anger’.

• The number of times participants used the

feedback help, but still made an error.

These factors were recorded by means of an

observation protocol.

The subjective opinions were measured by means

of a post-experiment questionnaire. Participants

were asked to rate various aspects of the user

interface using a Likert scale, where 9 was the most

positive score regarding some opinion, and 1 was the

most negative score available.

2.6 Apparatus and Materials

The experiment involved the use of ‘standard’

equipment. These were a laptop with, 128MB RAM,

20Gb disk and Windows XP. Also Microsoft Agent

2.0, the “Merlin” character and Lernout & Hauspie

TruVoice Text-to-Speech (TTS) engine (American

English) were used. Supplementary hardware used

consisted of an external mouse and external

speakers. Further, a paper notepad was available for

each participant, for use in the experiment (see

Procedure section). Each prototype was developed

using Visual Basic 6. The Anthropomorphic

ANTHROPOMORPHIC VS NON-ANTHROPOMORPHIC USER INTERFACE FEEDBACK FOR ONLINE HOTEL

BOOKINGS

159

interface required the use of the Microsoft Agent 2.0

Active X component.

2.7 Procedure

The first process was to recruit suitable experiment

candidates. This involved utilising the participant

recruitment questionnaire to ask specific questions

regarding the participants’ background and

experiences, to determine whether the participant

met the selection criteria. Once all the suitable

participants were recruited, they were randomly

assigned into either Group A or Group B (see

Experimental and Task Design section). Participants

were then contacted and asked to meet at a suitable

time to take part in the experiment.

The experiment itself took approximately 30

minutes to complete. The procedure involved

ensuring that each participant was treated in the

same way, with the following outlined procedure

being identical for each of the participants. Also all

the questionnaires and observation techniques used

were the same for each participant, with the aim of

minimizing confounding variables.

The experiment took place in a carefully

controlled environment, ensuring that there were no

distractions and that the participants felt at ease.

Upon entering the room each participant was

greeted by the experimenter and was made to feel

comfortable and relaxed. To make them feel more at

ease, light refreshments were also offered at this

time. The participants received a short verbal

introduction to the experiment, explaining the

purpose of the study, with reassurance that the

software was the focus of the study and not

themselves. At this time participants were informed

that they would be observed by the experimenter

who would be present in the room throughout the

experiment. When the participant felt relaxed, a task

sheet was given to them, which contained a brief

introduction to the experiment along with Tasks 1

and 2 (see Experimental and Task Design section).

Having read through the task sheet participants were

again assured that they were not being examined and

they were subsequently asked if they had any

immediate concerns regarding the tasks. Participants

were then instructed as to which method of feedback

they would be testing.

Once the participant was ready the program began

with a brief tutorial using the relevant method of

feedback (Group A anthropomorphic and Group B

non-anthropomorphic in terms of feedback). Both

tutorials, regardless of the feedback, were the same

in content. The only differences involved the

anthropomorphic character referring to itself as ‘I’,

while the non-anthropomorphic feedback was

neutral in nature. The tutorial informed the

participant how to book and cancel a hotel using the

prototype. When the tutorial was started, the relevant

mode of feedback ‘explained’ how to use each

screen and its features. All the screens involved in

the tutorial dealt with bookings and the cancellation

of bookings. For the anthropomorphic condition the

character uttered the information and this was also

concurrently viewable by means of corresponding

speech bubbles. Further, the character moved on the

screen and ‘pointed’ with a hand to the features of

each screen as it was being ‘described’. For the non-

anthropomorphic condition, the same information

appeared in text boxes with arrows pointing to the

various features of the screens.

Upon completion of the tutorial participants were

then asked whether the tasks were clear, and when

the participants felt ready the first task began.

Upon completion of task 1 participants were

asked if they had any immediate comments as to the

task they had completed, such comments being

recorded in the observation notes. The participants

were then asked whether they were ready to begin

task 2, once comfortable, task 2 proceeded. It was

determined that the task was complete when the

participants had successfully cancelled the booking

they had made during task 1. Following the task,

completion comments and opinions were sought

from the participants.

Errors were categorised by recording whether a

participant completed the task according to the

specifications given on the task sheet. If the

participants deviated from the instructions given,

e.g. the hotel was booked for the party arriving on

the wrong day, or not enough rooms booked etc, this

was recorded as a participant completing a task but

with some incorrect details (see Variables section

above).

At times when the participants hesitated as to

what they were required to do at a particular point,

these hesitations were recorded (see Variables

section above). At any point during the experiment if

a participant asked the experimenter present in the

room for guidance, no additional help was given.

Instead participants were instructed that they should

consult the feedback integrated into the interface,

which was of the same kind as found in the tutorial

and had the same condition being tested. If at any

time a participant did consult the feedback, and still

subsequently made an error regarding the problem

they were trying to overcome, this was recorded.

However, if the participant did consult the feedback

and this solved the problem, this was also recorded.

The number of times participants expressed clear

ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

160

frustration was also recorded. Such frustration

included occurrences where participants would make

remarks regarding certain aspects of the interface or

feedback that caused them anger.

A particular aspect of the second task was to enter

the booking reference supplied when participants

made a booking during Task 1, so that the correct

booking information could be retrieved to enable the

booking to be cancelled. If a participant was unable

to remember the booking reference (the software

instructed the participant to note the reference during

Task 1), having not written it down on the notepad

provided, this would be seen as an error and

subsequently resulted in the participant not fully

completing Task 2.

Once all tasks had been completed the

experimenter debriefed each participant. This

included the completion of the post experiment

questionnaire, elicitation of participants’ immediate

comments as well as the experimenter informing the

participant how the results of the study will be made

available if required.

2.8 Scoring

The effectiveness variables described (see Variables

section) were carefully recorded for each participant.

For each task completed/not completed, a score was

assigned for use in the statistical analyses. The score

for each task was based on a similar points system as

published in Murano (2002a). For each task, each

participant (unknown to them) was started on 10

points.

Events which caused the score to reduce were

observations of the following types: Signs of

frustration (negative physical attitude) or hesitation

resulted in 0.5 points being deducted from the score.

If the participant carried out an incorrect action,

causing the system to display an error message, 0.5

points were deducted. If the participant consulted the

feedback in a particular situation and despite the

help, continued to make a mistake, 0.5 points were

deducted from the running score.

Occurrences when the participant had completed

the task but made a mistake in the booking, resulted

in 1.5 points being deducted from the score. If the

participant was unable to complete the task, 1.5

points were deducted. Finally if the participant

completed the task with none of the noted penalties

the score would remain at 10.

Consequently, at the end of each task the

participant obtained a final score.

The formula was devised because it was felt that all

the factors being measured potentially had a direct

effect on overall success.

2.9 Results

The data obtained for this experiment concerned

effectiveness and subjective user opinions issues.

The effectiveness issues were statistically analysed

using a t-test and the subjective opinions regarding

the interface used, were analysed through their

means and standard deviations.

For the 20 participants, 10 using the

anthropomorphic feedback (MS Merlin) and 10

using the non-anthropomorphic feedback (guiding

text), data gathered from the first task showed a t-

observed of 3.08 and the t critical (5%) was 2.10,

Table 1 below illustrates these statistics:

Table 1: T-test result of text Vs Merlin (task 1).

t-Observed 3.09

t-Critical (5%) 2.10

For the second task with 20 participants, 10 using

anthropomorphic feedback (MS Merlin) and 10

using the non-anthropomorphic feedback (guiding

text), comparing between the two feedbacks the t-

observed was 2.55 and the t critical (5%) was 2.10.

Table 2 below illustrates these statistics:

Table 2: T-test result of text Vs Merlin (task 2).

t-Observed 2.55

t-Critical (5%) 2.10

For the 20 participants, 10 using anthropomorphic

feedback (MS Merlin) and 10 using the non-

anthropomorphic feedback (guiding text), across

both tasks, the t-observed was 4.93 and t critical

(5%) was 2.10. Table 3 below illustrates these

statistics:

Table 3: T-test result of text Vs Merlin (tasks 1 and 2

combined).

t-Observed 4.93

t-Critical (5%) 2.10

Several subjective questions regarding the general

user interface (e.g. buttons, screen sequencing and

text clarity etc.) were asked of all participants. All

subjective responses indicated that there were no

negative issues or severe ‘dislikes’ with the general

user interface.

The main aspects of importance regarding the

participants’ subjective opinions concerned the two

types of feedback being tested, particularly in

relation to the material presented in the initial

tutorial and feedback given as part of the help sub-

system. The relevant means and standard deviations

can be seen in tables 4 and 5 below:

ANTHROPOMORPHIC VS NON-ANTHROPOMORPHIC USER INTERFACE FEEDBACK FOR ONLINE HOTEL

BOOKINGS

161

Table 4: Means and standard deviations (SD) for tutorial

user subjective opinions.

Non -

Anthropomorphic

Group

Mean SD

Tutorial Helpfulness 8.10 0.74

Detailed Tutorial 8.40 0.52

Tutorial Clarity 8.40

0.52

Satisfying Tutorial 7.10 0.74

Structure of Tutorial 7.80 0.79

Aided in Completing

Task

7.80 0.79

Anthropomorphic

Group

Mean SD

Tutorial Helpfulness

7.50 1.08

Detailed Tutorial

7.70 0.48

Tutorial Clarity

8.40 0.52

Satisfying Tutorial

7.90 0.57

Structure of Tutorial

8.20 0.63

Aided in Completing

Task

7.30 1.06

Table 5: Means and standard deviations (SD) for system

help user subjective opinions.

Non-

Anthropomorphic

Group

Mean SD

Usefulness of Help 8.20 0.63

Help Clarity 7.70 0.82

Stimulating Help 7.80

0.63

Adequate Help 8.10 0.57

Relevant Help 8.60 0.52

Quality of Help 7.80 0.79

Aided in Solving

Problem

7.90 0.57

Help Understandability 8.40 0.52

Anthropomorphic

Group

Mean SD

Usefulness of Help 8.10 0.57

Help Clarity 8.00 0.47

Stimulating Help 8.00 0.67

Adequate Help 7.70 0.67

Relevant Help 8.20 0.79

Quality of Help 8.40 0.52

Aided in Solving

Problem

8.00 0.47

Help Understandability 8.50 0.71

Participants were also asked their opinions

regarding potential future use of the interface

feedback they used during the experiment. For the

non-anthropomorphic group (guiding text), 6 out of

10 participants said they would use the feedback

again if made available. For the anthropomorphic

group (MS Merlin), 8 out of 10 participants said

they would use the feedback again if made available.

3 CONCLUSIONS

Initially tasks 1 and 2 were statistically analysed on

an individual basis as task 2 was a shorter and easier

task to carry out, so it was necessary to assess if this

influenced the results in any way. The 2 tasks were

also analysed together to give an overall assessment

of the feedback.

The results from the individual tasks and the

combination of the 2 tasks show clear statistical

significance in favour of the non-anthropomorphic

(guiding text) feedback. Participants completed the

tasks more successfully and with less

errors/hesitations in the hotel booking context.

Consequently, with reference to the hypotheses

stated earlier in this paper, it is now possible to

reject the (H0b) null hypothesis, with the results

showing that there is a clear difference between the

feedbacks in terms of effectiveness. Statistical

significance in the results enables the (H1a) positive

hypothesis to be accepted. This postulated that the

non-anthropomorphic feedback would be more

effective.

Assessment of the user satisfaction of the two

types of feedback in terms of the tutorial and help

sub-system, shows that the 2 groups of participants

each rated these fairly closely to each other, as can

be seen by the means (tables 4 and 5). Also in all

cases the scores provided by the participants are

consistent, as the standard deviations are all rather

low. Further there was not much difference in the

responses of the 2 groups of participants, concerning

whether the participants would be prepared to use

the same feedback again, should it become available.

Therefore the null hypothesis (H0a) is accepted,

the scores do not show enough difference between

them to allow a different conclusion. The positive

hypothesis (H1b) is therefore rejected.

These results follow the results obtained by

Murano (2003) in the different context of direction

finding – within the area of online factual delivery.

The suggestion being made is that software for

online factual delivery in some different contexts or

domains is better suited to having a non-

anthropomorphic type of user interface feedback.

Some interesting comments and observations

were made by the participants during and after the

experiment. The anthropomorphic feedback seemed

to ‘fascinate’ some of the participants in this group.

Some commented that they ‘sat back’ and

‘watched’. Some also commented that they felt they

were not actually learning anything. Certain

ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

162

individuals seemed to concentrate more on the

‘appearance’ of the Merlin character rather than

concentrating on the words being uttered. These

participant comments were reasonable as their

observed behaviour matched their self-evaluation.

Another interesting aspect concerns the fact that

some participants in the anthropomorphic group

stated that their experience with this feedback was

‘engaging’, ‘involving’ and ‘fun’. The converse was

true of some of the comments made by the non-

anthropomorphic group, where some stated their

experience was ‘uninspiring’ and ‘normal’. These

aspects were also evident as the participants were

being observed. These participant comments and

observations could explain why the

anthropomorphic feedback was rated very closely to

the non-anthropomorphic feedback. It could simply

be that the anthropomorphic feedback had more of a

novelty factor. However the authors suggest that this

novelty factor would disappear with regular use of

such a system.

These results are very important for user

interface designers, as it would be the ideal scenario

to be able to generalise these results to all types of

software in the area of online factual delivery.

Therefore, the experimental results are suggesting

that for software for online factual delivery, non-

anthropomorphic feedback is potentially more

effective in terms of reducing user errors and

hesitations. Users however rate both kinds of

feedback highly, as was also found in Murano

(2003). The suggestion could be therefore to have

some element of anthropomorphic feedback along

with the non-anthropomorphic feedback. This could

be done by having the anthropomorphic feedback in

a non-crucial role, while using the non-

anthropomorphic feedback for the important aspects

of an interaction. A further suggestion would be to

make both kinds of feedback available to the user,

by some ‘toggle’ function. Whichever strategy

would be followed, it would require piloting in a real

environment with potential real users. If an

appropriate strategy could be found, the usability of

an application could be enhanced bringing benefit to

a software house involved in its development and to

the user community.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank The School of

Computing, Science and Engineering at the

University of Salford, Prof. Ritchings, Heriot-Watt

University, Edinburgh, Dept. of Computer Science

and The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen,

School of Computing are thanked for their support.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, A., 1999 Raw computation, Scientific American,

281, pp. 44-47.

Dehn, D. M., van Mulken, S., 2000 The Impact of

animated interface agents: A Review of Empirical

Research. International Journal of Human-Computer

Studies 52: 1-22.

Koda, T., Maes, P., 1996 Agents with faces: the effect of

personification, Proc. of the 5

IEEE International

Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (RO-

MAN ‘96), pp. 189-194.

Laurel, B., 1997 Interface agents: metaphors with

character. In Software Agents, ed Bradshaw, J.M. MIT

Press, London.

Maes, P., 1994 Agents that reduce work and information

overload, Communications of the ACM, 37(7), pp. 31-

40.

Murano, P., 2005 Why anthropomorphic user interface

feedback can be effective and preferred by users, 7th

Int. Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. (c)

– INSTICC, Miami.

Murano, P., 2003 Anthropomorphic vs non-

anthropomorphic software interface feedback for

online factual delivery, Proc. of the 7

. Int.

Conference on Information Visualisation (IV’03),

IEEE, p. 138, London.

Murano, P., 2002a Anthropomorphic vs non-

anthropomorphic software interface feedback for

online systems usage, 7th ERCIM Int. Workshop on

User Interfaces for All, pp. 339-349, Paris.

Murano, P., 2002b Effectiveness of mapping human-

oriented information to feedback from a software

interface Proc. 24th International Conference on

Information Technology Interfaces, Cavtat - Croatia.

Murano, P., 2001a A new software agent 'learning'

algorithm, People in Control: An International

Conference on Human Interfaces in Control Rooms,

Cockpits and Command Centres, IEE, Manchester.

Murano, P., 2001b Mapping human-oriented information

to software agents for online systems usage, People in

Control: An International Conference on Human

Interfaces in Control Rooms, Cockpits and Command

Centres, IEE, Manchester.

Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., 2005 Designing the user

interface: strategies for effective human computer

interaction, Pearson Education.

Takeuchi, A., Naito, T., 1995 Situated facial displays:

towards social interaction, Proc. CHI’95 Human

Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 450-454.

Zue, V., 1999 Talking with your computer, Scientific

American, 281, pp. 40-41,

ANTHROPOMORPHIC VS NON-ANTHROPOMORPHIC USER INTERFACE FEEDBACK FOR ONLINE HOTEL

BOOKINGS

163