Implementation Choices (Autonomy and Feedback Acquisition)

The following questions dig much deeper and attempt to look at issues to consider in implementing Social Adaptation, with Q5 examining autonomy and Qs 6-8 focussing on aspects and developments challenges of users’ feedback acquisition process since it plays a significant role in enabling Social Adaptation. This is then followed by a sub-section that deduce (based on the findings of Q5 to Q8) potential challenges to supporting these benefits to developers and clients (see Section 3.3.1.1).

Q5: Knowing that relying on Social Adaptation is a user’s choice, are there cases where software should still ask users to confirm its adaptation decision?

The degree of autonomy in socially-adaptive systems has been always debated. Should the system take an autonomous full control on the adaptation process? Or should the user interfere sometimes? This thesis extracts, analyses and discusses experts’ opinion in regard to autonomy in Social Adaptation. 96% of the respondents agree that user confirmation is essential before an adaptation action autonomously suggested by software is allowed to impact the system. The remaining 4% claim that adaptation actions should not require user confirmation since this is why self-adaptive systems are autonomous “User should be not too much bothered. Moreover I

think that user identification should be automatic in the mechanism adopted to get user feedback.” (EX20).

Even though the consensus tilts towards user involvement in confirming adaptation actions, many experts believe that the answer to this question is not a binary (yes or no). In many cases, the choice of whether user should be involved depends on the type of services provided by the adaptive system (e.g. its criticality), the implication of the action on user’s privacy, security, and financial spending. Also, “nice to have” autonomous Social Adaptation actions should not outweigh core functionalities of the system, hence users need to choose what is important to them in each context.

Q6: Can the quality of collected feedback be affected by the way it is collected?

All respondents agreed that the way feedback is collected has an effect on the quality of the feedback. The exact implication of the collection mechanism can be manifested in terms of:  [Finding 6.1] Time (as indicated by 60% of experts’ responses): Asking users for

feedback when they are busy may result to poor responses or it may be discarded. Finding the right time to ask for feedback is important “Asking in a busy moment of the end-user will result

in only yes/no answers. Asking if the end-user is bored will result maybe in creative feedback, but not necessarily high quality.” (EX1).

 [Finding 6.2] User interface (as indicated by 70% of experts’ responses): Short,

Page | 44

allow users to express their biases using wider band of options, such as Likert scale (Likert 1932), rather than conventional yes or no options.

 [Finding 6.3] Language (as indicated by 75% of experts’ responses): The phrasing of

the question, for example based on the language proficiency of the user, will determine how users interpret and respond to questions. Even for experienced users, misinterpretation is sometimes inevitable due to the ambiguity inherent in natural languages “simple interfaces are

essential, avoid long texts or complicated questions. Things such as “like” and “dislike” may be especially effective” (EX5).

 [Finding 6.4] Quality of users (as indicated by 60% of experts’ responses): This

involves asking the right user population for feedback and ensuring the size of users is representative of the group characteristics “Is it the right user group? How representative is the

feedback? User profiles? Can you capture user’s perception or viewpoint of the question asked? How is the feedback question phrased? Any domain specific language?” (EX3).

 [Finding 6.5] User’s mood (as indicated by 30% of experts’ responses): Some

interesting responses suggest strongly that the mood of users should be factored into the feedback acquisition process. While the mood of users may impact the quality of feedback, it is still hard to monitor the emotional state of users (e.g. happy, bored, excited, angry etc.) during feedback acquisition. Perhaps advances in recognizing emotions through facial expression (Adolphs 2002) could be helpful in this area.

Q7: Is the development of feedback acquisition mechanisms technically challenging?

Experts stress that developing software-based feedback acquisition poses a variety of technical challenges due to changing context of use and users’ evolvement. Almost two-thirds (65%) of the responses indicated that the users selection and interaction style is a key challenge which includes incentivising users to give feedback, when to ask for feedback, who to ask for feedback, how to interact with users without annoying them and the usability degree when giving feedback “Uncertainty, building a user-friendly interface, convincing the user of the

importance of it.”(EX7). “The design should incentivize impatient and ignorant users to give feedback. Implementation would not be the problem, designing is the main challenge.”(EX18).

Responses also indicated that, engineering of users’ feedback acquisition is a multidisciplinary process and it has a potential usefulness and strong relationships with various domains such as, Requirement Engineering, Ubiquitous systems, HCI, Context aware systems Social Science, Psychology, Recommendation Systems and Machine learning.

From the various experts’ answers to the engineering challenges of a software-based feedback acquisition, it can be deduced that the engineering of an adaptive software-based feedback acquisition stands out as a technically challenging process. The first step of gathering feedback already raises many questions: What type of feedback should be asked of users? How

Page | 45

should feedback be cleansed, represented, processed, filtered, and selectively adopted for use by the systems? If users are relied upon to steer the adaptation process then the system must be equipped with capabilities to cope with the ambiguity flaws of natural languages.

Additionally and in relation to the findings of the previous question (Q6), the extracted engineering challenges of the feedback acquisition can also be considered as factors that can affect negatively/positively the quality of collected feedback. Addressing these challenges can possibly improve the quality of collected feedback. For example, developing an incentive scheme for users might improve the quality of their given feedback.

Q8: If feedback acquisition is adaptive, what could be the adaptation drivers?

Context is important for the choice of feedback acquisition methods, and experts agreed that an adaptive feedback acquisition mechanism is a necessary enabler to decide ways of acquiring feedback. Some possible drivers for such adaptive mechanism suggested were:

 [Finding 8.1] User experience (as indicated by 85% of experts’ responses): E.g. usage

frequency. This could inform how often users should be asked for feedback. For example, a less frequent user may find providing feedback meaningless, since they hardly use the software in the first place “Usage information of user’s laptop (or other smart devices). E.g. if a user is

browsing web sites or watching a video, probably he/she is free.” (EX17).

 [Finding 8.2] Application constraints (as indicated by 20% of experts’ responses):

Such as the application model, domain model, and level of interactivity of the software are likely to influence ways of acquiring feedback “this should include several components,

including a user model, application model, domain model, and a general feedback or adaptation model.” (EX8).

 [Finding 8.3] Direct enquiry (as indicated by 20% of experts’ responses): Involves

asking the users if they wish to provide feedback, if yes, how often they wish to do so and what methods they would like to use for providing such feedbacks “Ask the user what they prefer.

When is the best time to give feedback, what form would they like?” (EX14).

The identified trend here is that drivers of adaptive feedback acquisition should not be studied in isolation. Such drivers may trade-off against each other. A user that provides feedback frequently, for example, will only find answering the direct enquiry questions useful, as a way of improving his/her feedback provision.

3.3.2.1

Degree of Autonomy: It is interesting to observe that although experts advocate that Social

Adaptation is useful for meeting users’ requirements, autonomously, based on the crowd feedback, they still believe individual users should be in the loop during the decision-making process of their software. [Challenge 8] It raises the question of how much control users are willing to surrender to software systems. For example, in modern autopilot assistant systems,

Page | 46

pilots take a supervisory role while software controls the flight of airplanes. The challenge here seems to be psychological in nature, since users are happy to trust the system when they are involved in the decision-making. Does this mean users trust their own socially-generated decisions less than expert knowledge encoded in systems such as Auto-pilot? Suppose, users were able to collaboratively fly an aircraft, would it land safely? Perhaps, this trustworthiness issue is why experts believe that Social Adaptation should not be used in critical systems but in less critical systems (See Q4).

Impact of Collection Approach and Importance of Mood: Investigation into the impact of user mood on the quality of feedback in specific application domains may require evidences from psychology “This is mainly a psychological issue, finding the right time and modality and

give incentives to the user for providing a good feedback” (EX5). Advances in neuroinformatics

could be helpful in this area. Some experts suggest that feedback should only be requested for features that are frequently used by the user. [Challenge 9] This will require mechanisms for monitoring user’s feature usage statistics/trends and using these results to inform which feedbacks are requested from the user.

[Challenge 10] Some domain-specific feedback acquisition languages and mechanisms might be needed. Some feedback mechanisms may work better in some application areas than others. This challenge is akin to problem in requirement elicitation based on application areas and user experience. Perhaps some lessons can be learnt from the requirements community to address this challenge.

[Challenge 11] Additionally, software developer could turn to mature fields like HCI to learn how interfaces are built to gather feedback from users in a variety of contexts or even to use innovative features such as voice-based feedback acquisition rather than purely text which might make the process easier and more enjoyable for users “[users] will provide more

feedbacks to a system that can support voice recognition than others without this feature.”

(EX17).

Impact of User Selection and Interaction Styles: In a software-based feedback acquisition, a further important challenge is catering for the users’ selection and interaction style. More specifically, there are challenges in the following aspects [Challenges 12-18]: 1) modelling users styles (including incentives, 2) deciding when to ask for feedback, 3) deciding what type of feedback to ask for, 4) deciding with whom to interact, 5) deciding how to interact and avoid annoying or confusing users, 6) deciding how to design for maximized usability in feedback acquisition and 7) deciding how to ensure trust and reliability of acquired feedback. Feedback Acquisition Drivers: [Challenge 19] the challenge here is indeed the need to identify the relevant drivers of the adaptive acquisition of users’ feedback and [Challenge 20] engineer these drivers in a way that is non-intrusive to users. In addition, Social Adaptation is applicable and useful in various domains and the availability of a systematic approach for engineering an adaptive users’ feedback acquisition is highly valuable. It could bring promising

Page | 47

benefits for users and developers in the different domain where adaptation is recommended and, perhaps, different disciplines like marketing and e-commerce. [Challenge 21] Therefore, the development of an application-independent framework for an adaptive users’ feedback acquisition is also a key challenge of users’ feedback acquisition.