下载文档原格式
Reducing arguments is an essential skill in both personal and professional settings. Here are some strategies to consider when aiming to minimize disagreements:1. Active Listening: Make sure to listen carefully to the other persons point of view. This shows respect and can help you understand their perspective better.2. Emotional Control: Keep your emotions in check. Its easy for arguments to escalate when emotions run high. Stay calm and composed.3. Use I Statements: Instead of saying You always... or You never..., use I feel... or I think.... This can prevent the other person from feeling attacked.4. Seek Common Ground: Try to find areas where you both agree. This can help to builda foundation for resolving differences.5. Be Open to Compromise: Sometimes, you may need to meet in the middle to resolve a disagreement. Be willing to give a little to get a little.6. Stay Focused on the Issue: Avoid bringing up unrelated issues or past grievances. Stick to the topic at hand to prevent the argument from becoming a freeforall.7. Use Facts and Logic: Base your arguments on facts and logical reasoning rather than personal attacks or emotions.8. Take a Break if Needed: If the argument is getting heated, it might be helpful to take a break and cool down before continuing the discussion.9. Be Respectful: Even if you disagree, its important to maintain respect for the other person. Avoid namecalling or derogatory language.10. Know When to Let Go: Some arguments may not be worth the effort. If you find that the disagreement isnt going anywhere, it might be best to agree to disagree.11. Practice Empathy: Try to see the situation from the other persons point of view. This can help you understand their feelings and motivations.12. Use Conflict Resolution Techniques: Learn and apply various conflict resolution strategies, such as negotiation, mediation, or collaborative problemsolving.13. Set Clear Boundaries: If certain topics are known to cause arguments, it might be bestto avoid them or set boundaries on how they are discussed.14. Improve Communication Skills: Work on expressing your thoughts clearly and concisely. Miscommunication can often lead to unnecessary arguments.15. Reflect and Learn: After an argument, take time to reflect on what happened and how it could have been handled better. Use this as a learning opportunity for future discussions.By implementing these strategies, you can foster a more harmonious environment and reduce the frequency and intensity of arguments. Remember, the goal is not to avoid all disagreements, but to handle them in a way that is productive and respectful.。
玩手机减少交流的坏处的英语作文全文共3篇示例，供读者参考篇1The Advantages of Reducing Cell Phone Usage on CommunicationIn today's modern world, cell phones have become an integral part of our daily lives. We use them for communication, entertainment, and productivity. However, excessive cell phone usage can have negative effects on our ability to communicate effectively with others. In this essay, we will explore the benefits of reducing cell phone usage on communication.One of the main ways that cell phones can interfere with communication is by distracting us from the people we are with. When we are constantly checking our phones for messages or notifications, we are not fully present in the moment. This can lead to misunderstandings, miscommunication, and a lack of connection with those around us. By reducing our cell phone usage, we can be more attentive and engaged in our interactions with others.Another way that cell phones can hinder communication is by replacing face-to-face interactions with digital communication. While texting and messaging can be convenient, they lack the nuances of in-person communication, such as tone of voice, body language, and facial expressions. By relying too heavily on digital communication, we may miss out on the deeper connections that can be formed through face-to-face interactions.Furthermore, excessive cell phone usage can lead to a decline in our social skills. When we spend more time interacting with screens than with people, we may struggle to engage in meaningful conversations, make eye contact, or interpret social cues. This can make it difficult to build and maintain relationships, both in personal and professional settings.On the other hand, reducing cell phone usage can have a number of benefits for communication. By unplugging from our devices and being more present in the moment, we can improve our listening skills, show more empathy towards others, and cultivate stronger relationships. Face-to-face interactions allow us to connect on a deeper level, share experiences, and build trust and understanding.In conclusion, while cell phones have many useful functions, they can also have negative impacts on our ability to communicate effectively. By reducing our cell phone usage, we can improve our relationships, enhance our social skills, and deepen our connections with others. It is important to strike a balance between technology and human interaction in order to thrive in today's digital age.篇2Playing on the phone is a common activity for people of all ages in today's society. With the rise of smartphones, it has become easier than ever to access games, social media, and other forms of entertainment on the go. While smartphones can be a great tool for staying connected and informed, they also have the potential to decrease face-to-face communication and interpersonal relationships.One of the main drawbacks of spending too much time on your phone is that it can lead to a decrease in meaningful conversations and relationships with others. When people are constantly scrolling through their phones or playing games, they may miss out on opportunities to connect with those around them. This can be especially harmful in relationships with friends and family, as it can lead to feelings of neglect and isolation.In addition to impacting personal relationships, excessive phone use can also have negative effects on communication skills. When individuals are constantly communicating through screens, they may struggle to effectively communicate in person. This can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and a lack of empathy towards others.Furthermore, spending too much time on the phone can also have negative effects on mental health. Studies have shown that excessive use of smartphones is associated with higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. This is likely due to the fact that spending too much time on the phone can lead to feelings of isolation and disconnection from the real world.In conclusion, while smartphones can be a useful tool for staying connected and entertained, it is important to be mindful of the potential drawbacks of excessive phone use. By making an effort to limit screen time and prioritize face-to-face communication, we can foster stronger relationships and improve our overall well-being. Remember, it's important to put down the phone and engage in meaningful interactions with those around you.篇3The advancement of technology has revolutionized the way we communicate. With the widespread use of smartphones, people have become increasingly reliant on their devices for social interaction. While smartphones have made it easier for us to connect with others, they have also resulted in a decrease in face-to-face communication. This trend of excessive phone usage has had detrimental effects on our ability to engage in meaningful conversations and build strong relationships.One of the main downsides of excessive phone usage is the lack of genuine communication. When people spend too much time on their phones, they tend to prioritize virtual interactions over real-life conversations. This can lead to a decline in social skills as individuals become less adept at reading body language, tone of voice, and other non-verbal cues. As a result, meaningful connections are often replaced by shallow interactions that lack depth and emotional resonance.Moreover, excessive phone usage can also lead to feelings of isolation and loneliness. While social media platforms allow us to stay connected with a large network of friends and acquaintances, these virtual relationships can never fully replace the sense of belonging that comes from genuine human interaction. When we prioritize our phones over face-to-faceconversations, we miss out on the opportunity to form meaningful connections and build strong, supportive relationships.Another negative consequence of excessive phone usage is the impact it can have on our mental health. Studies have shown that excessive screen time can lead to feelings of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Constantly comparing ourselves to others on social media can create unrealistic expectations and a sense of inadequacy. Additionally, the constant barrage of notifications and messages can be overwhelming and contribute to feelings of stress and overwhelm.In conclusion, while smartphones have undoubtedly revolutionized the way we communicate, it is important to be mindful of the negative effects of excessive phone usage. By prioritizing real-life conversations and connections over virtual interactions, we can cultivate strong relationships, improve our social skills, and safeguard our mental health. It is important to strike a balance between technology use and face-to-face communication in order to maintain healthy and fulfilling relationships in today's digital age.。
In the realm of communication,the power of words is immense.They can build up or tear down,inspire or demoralize,and even change the course of lives.Thus,the adage think before you speak holds profound significance.It is a principle that encourages us to exercise caution and mindfulness in our choice of words and actions.Firstly,the act of thinking before speaking allows us to consider the potential impact of our words on others.We must remember that words,once spoken,cannot be taken back. They can leave a lasting impression,whether positive or negative.By taking a moment to reflect,we can ensure that our words are thoughtful,respectful,and appropriate for the situation.Secondly,careful consideration of our words can prevent misunderstandings and conflicts.In the heat of the moment,it is easy to let emotions dictate our speech,leading to hurtful or regrettable comments.By pausing to think,we can choose our words more deliberately,reducing the likelihood of causing offense or miscommunication.Moreover,thinking before we speak can also enhance our credibility and reputation. When we speak with forethought,our words are more likely to be wellreasoned and articulate.This demonstrates our ability to think critically and communicate effectively, which can earn us the respect and trust of others.In addition,this practice of prudence in speech can foster a more harmonious and respectful environment.When everyone takes the time to think before they speak, conversations become more constructive and less contentious.This can lead to better relationships and a more positive social atmosphere.However,it is important to note that thinking before speaking does not mean suppressing our thoughts or opinions.Rather,it is about expressing ourselves with clarity,sincerity, and consideration for the feelings of others.It is about finding the right balance between honesty and tact.In conclusion,the importance of thinking before we speak cannot be overstated.It is a practice that promotes empathy,understanding,and effective communication.By cultivating this habit,we can enhance our interactions with others and contribute to a more compassionate and respectful society.。
与人沟通中的问题和解决方法英语作文Effective Communication: Navigating Challenges and Finding SolutionsCommunication is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, enabling us to express our thoughts, feelings, and ideas. However, effective communication is not always a straightforward process, and individuals often face various challenges that can hinder their ability to connect with others. In this essay, we will explore the common problems encountered in interpersonal communication and examine strategies for overcoming these obstacles.One of the primary challenges in communication is the lack of active listening. Often, individuals are more focused on formulating their own responses rather than truly listening to the other person. This can lead to misunderstandings, frustration, and a breakdown in the overall communication process. To address this issue, it is crucial to practice active listening, which involves fully engaging with the speaker, asking clarifying questions, and demonstrating genuine interest in their message.Another common problem in communication is the presence ofcultural and linguistic barriers. Individuals from different backgrounds may have varying communication styles, cultural norms, and language proficiencies, which can create obstacles in understanding and being understood. To overcome these barriers, it is essential to approach communication with empathy, cultural awareness, and a willingness to adapt one's communication style to the needs of the individual or group.The impact of nonverbal communication can also be a significant factor in effective communication. Subtle cues such as body language, eye contact, and tone of voice can convey unspoken messages that can either enhance or undermine the verbal exchange. Recognizing and interpreting these nonverbal signals can help individuals better understand the underlying meaning behind the words being spoken.In addition to these challenges, the influence of personal biases and assumptions can also hinder effective communication. Individuals often make judgments or form opinions based on their own experiences, beliefs, and preconceptions, which can lead to misinterpretations and breakdowns in communication. To overcome this, it is crucial to approach communication with an open mind, suspend judgment, and actively seek to understand the other person's perspective.Effective communication also requires the ability to manage emotions and conflicts that may arise during interpersonal interactions. Strong emotions such as anger, fear, or frustration can cloud judgment and lead to defensive or aggressive communication patterns. By developing emotional intelligence and conflict resolution skills, individuals can navigate these challenging situations with empathy, patience, and a focus on finding mutually beneficial solutions.Finally, the increasing reliance on technology in modern communication can also present its own set of challenges. While technology has undoubtedly enhanced our ability to connect with others, it has also introduced new barriers, such as the lack of nonverbal cues, the potential for miscommunication, and the risk of misinterpreting tone and intent. To address these challenges, it is essential to develop digital communication skills, establish clear expectations, and maintain a focus on building genuine connections, even in the digital realm.In conclusion, effective communication is a complex and multifaceted process that requires a combination of skills, mindsets, and strategies. By addressing the common challenges encountered in interpersonal communication, such as active listening, cultural and linguistic barriers, nonverbal communication, personal biases, emotional management, and technological considerations,individuals can develop the necessary tools to navigate these obstacles and foster more meaningful and productive interactions. Ultimately, the ability to communicate effectively is a crucial skill that can enhance personal, professional, and social relationships, leading to greater understanding, collaboration, and personal growth.。
Writing letters has been a cherished form of communication for centuries,and despite the digital age,the art of letter writing still holds numerous advantages.Here are some of the key benefits of writing letters:1.Personal Touch:Letters offer a personal touch that is often missing in digital communication.The act of writing by hand can convey warmth and sincerity that typed messages sometimes lack.2.Thoughtful Expression:Writing a letter allows the sender to take time to think about what they want to say,which can lead to more thoughtful and wellcrafted messages.3.Permanence:Letters can be kept and reread,serving as a tangible record of communication.They can be cherished keepsakes that hold sentimental value.4.Reduced Miscommunication:Unlike spoken or digital communication,letters can be reread and carefully considered,reducing the chance of misunderstandings.5.Calm and Reflective:Writing a letter can be a calming and reflective process,allowing the writer to express their thoughts and feelings in a more composed manner.6.Cultural and Historical Significance:Letters have played a significant role in history and culture,and writing letters can be a way to connect with this rich heritage.7.Improved Writing Skills:The process of crafting a letter can help improve ones writing skills,from grammar and punctuation to the ability to articulate complex ideas clearly.8.Privacy:Letters can offer a more private form of communication compared to digital messages,which can be intercepted or hacked.9.Slow Communication:The slower pace of letter writing and receiving can be beneficial,allowing for anticipation and a deeper appreciation of the message when it arrives.10.Creativity:Writing letters can inspire creativity,from the choice of stationery to the way the message is presented.11.No Need for Immediate Response:Unlike emails or text messages,letters do not demand an immediate response,allowing the recipient to take their time to formulate a thoughtful reply.12.Supportive of LongDistance Relationships:For those separated by distance,letters can be a comforting way to maintain a close connection and share experiences and emotions.13.Etiquette and Formality:Letters can be used to convey respect and formality,which is appropriate in certain situations,such as job applications or formal invitations.14.Memory Trigger:Receiving a letter can trigger memories and emotions associated with the sender,strengthening the bond between the two parties.15.No Technical Requirements:Unlike digital communication,writing a letter does not require access to technology,making it accessible to all.In conclusion,while the world becomes increasingly digital,the simple act of writing a letter continues to offer unique and valuable benefits that enrich our communication and relationships.。
翻译专业的英语翻译服务，确保准确无误，准时交付Title: English Translation Services for Translation Majors: Ensuring Accuracy and Timely DeliveryAbstract:In today's globalized world, the demand for professional translation services is growing rapidly. Translation majors play a crucial role in bridging the language gap and facilitating effective communication between different cultures. This article aims to explore the significance of English translation services provided by translation majors, emphasizing the importance of accuracy and timely delivery.Introduction:Translation is an art that requires not only linguistic skills but also cultural understanding. As globalization continues to connect people from different backgrounds, the need for accurate and reliable translation services becomes paramount. English, being one of the most widely spoken languages worldwide, demands proficient translation servicesto cater to various business, academic, and personal needs.English Translation Services by Translation Majors:Translation majors are individuals who have undergone rigorous training in both language and translation theory. Their expertise enables them to provide high-quality English translation services that ensure accuracy and precision. These professionals possess excellent command over both the source and target languages, enabling them to accurately convey the intended message while maintaining the original tone and style.The Importance of Accuracy:Accuracy is of utmost importance in translation services. Any slight error can lead to miscommunication, misunderstandings, and even legal consequences. Translation majors are well-versed in the intricacies of language, grammar, and syntax, ensuring that the translated text is faithful to the original. They possess the necessary skills to research and understand complex terms, idioms, and cultural nuances, which is crucial for accurate translations.The Role of Technology:In the digital age, translation tools and software have become indispensable aids for translation majors. These tools assist in maintaining consistency, improving efficiency, and reducing human errors. However, it is important to note that relying solely on technology can compromise the accuracy and quality of translation. Translation majors utilize these tools judiciously, combining their linguistic expertise with technological support to deliver accurate translations.Ensuring Timely Delivery:Timeliness is another crucial aspect of translation services. Clients often have strict deadlines and expect their translations to be delivered promptly. Translation majors are trained to work efficiently under pressure, managing their time effectively to meet deadlines without compromising the quality of their work. They understand the importance of timely delivery and strive to meet or exceed client expectations.Quality Assurance:To ensure the highest level of quality, translation majors follow a rigorous quality assurance process. This includes thorough proofreading, editing, and reviewing by experiencedprofessionals. Additionally, they adhere to industry standards and ethical guidelines, maintaining confidentiality and respecting the privacy of their clients.Conclusion:English translation services provided by translation majors play a vital role in facilitating effective communication across cultures. Their expertise, linguistic proficiency, and commitment to accuracy and timely delivery make them indispensable in today's globalized world. By relying on their skills and knowledge, clients can be confident in receiving accurate translations that meet their specific needs. As the demand for professional translation services continues to increase, the role of translation majors in ensuring accurate and timely delivery becomes even more significant.摘要：在当今全球化的世界中，对专业翻译服务的需求迅速增长。
英语学习过程中容易忽视的语音重要性English learners often focus on improving their vocabulary, grammar, and reading skills while neglecting the importance of pronunciation. However, mastering English pronunciation is crucial for effective communication. In this article, we will explore the often overlooked significance of phonetics in the process of learning English.1. IntroductionThe ability to pronounce English words accurately is essential for being understood and conveying our thoughts clearly. Neglecting pronunciation can lead to miscommunication and hinder one's language proficiency. Therefore, it is important to recognize the significance of phonetics in the English learning journey.2. The Role of Phonetics in CommunicationPhonetics refers to the study of speech sounds, including how they are produced, transmitted, and perceived. Understanding phonetics helps learners to articulate sounds correctly and distinguish between different phonemes. This, in turn, enables effective communication and comprehension.3. Enhancing Listening SkillsAcquiring good pronunciation skills enhances listening comprehension. By accurately pronouncing words and understanding their sounds, learners can better comprehend spoken English. Mastery of English phonetics allows learners to follow conversations, lectures, and presentations more efficiently.4. Improving Speaking SkillsThe ability to produce English sounds accurately is essential for effective spoken communication. Pronouncing words correctly helps convey intended meanings and reduces the chances of ambiguity. Moreover, proper pronunciation makes speech more natural and native-like, which increases overall fluency and confidence.5. Overcoming Communication BarriersAccurate pronunciation helps overcome communication barriers. When learners have a strong command of English phonetics, they can overcome speech and accent barriers, facilitating communication with native speakers and other English learners. This contributes to creating a more inclusive and diverse language learning environment.6. Enhancing IntelligibilityProper pronunciation increases intelligibility, making it easier for others to understand what learners are saying. Clear and accurate pronunciation reduces the need for repetition and enhances efficiency in oral communication. It promotes effective dialogue and eliminates any misinterpretation caused by incorrect pronunciation.7. Developing Phonemic AwarenessPhonemic awareness, the ability to recognize and manipulate individual sounds within words, is crucial for verbal communication. By focusing on phonetics, learners develop phonemic awareness, enabling them to identify and differentiate between sounds. This skill is particularly important in English, considering its complex sound system.8. Avoiding MiscommunicationNeglecting pronunciation can result in miscommunication and misunderstandings. Mispronouncing certain sounds or stressing syllables incorrectly can completely alter the meaning of words. By paying attention to phonetics, learners can reduce the chances of miscommunication and convey their intended messages accurately.9. Improving AccentWhile accents are a natural part of language diversity, developing a clear accent is desirable for effective communication. By studying phonetics, learners can work towards reducing their accents and making their speech clearer and more intelligible to a wider range of listeners.10. ConclusionIn the process of learning English, it is crucial not to overlook the importance of phonetics. By focusing on pronunciation, learners can enhance their listening and speaking skills, overcome communication barriers, improve intelligibility, and avoid miscommunication. Therefore, a comprehensive language learning approach should include regular practice and study of English phonetics to ensure effective communication and language proficiency.。
专利名称：Methods For Reducing Interference In ACommunication System发明人：Kai Yang,Chan-Byoung Chae,Doru Calin,DenisRouffet,Simon Yiu申请号：US13010262申请日：20110120公开号：US20110183623A1公开日：20110728专利内容由知识产权出版社提供专利附图：摘要：Example embodiments are directed to methods of reducing interference in a communication system. In at least one example embodiment, a method includes firstdetermining, by a first transmitter having a multi-directional antenna configured to produce a plurality of beams, at least one interference level of at least one interfering beam of a plurality of beams of at least one transmitter in the communication system, second determining a transmitting beam pattern based on the interference level, the transmitting beam pattern indicating a sequence of illuminating the plurality of beams at corresponding time slots, third determining a fractional frequency reuse pattern based on the transmitting beam pattern, and transmitting data based on the transmitting beam pattern and the frequency reuse pattern.申请人：Kai Yang,Chan-Byoung Chae,Doru Calin,Denis Rouffet,Simon Yiu地址：Princeton NJ US,Jersey City NJ US,Manalapan NJ US,Boulogne-Billancourt FR,Jersey City NJ US国籍：US,US,US,FR,US更多信息请下载全文后查看。
文化误读英语作文Cultural MisunderstandingsIn today's increasingly globalized world, the ability to effectively communicate and understand different cultures has become increasingly important. However, despite the abundance of information and opportunities for cross-cultural exchange, cultural misunderstandings continue to be a prevalent issue. These misunderstandings can lead to miscommunication, conflict, and a lack of mutual understanding, which can have significant consequences in both personal and professional settings.One of the primary reasons for cultural misunderstandings is the inherent differences in cultural norms, values, and beliefs. What may be considered acceptable or even desirable behavior in one culture may be perceived as offensive or inappropriate in another. For example, in some cultures, direct eye contact is seen as a sign of respect and engagement, while in others, it may be considered rude or intrusive. Similarly, the concept of personal space can vary greatly across cultures, with some individuals feeling comfortable with a closer physical proximity than others.Another factor that contributes to cultural misunderstandings is the influence of language and communication styles. Even when individuals share a common language, the way they express themselves, interpret messages, and convey meaning can differ significantly. For instance, in some cultures, indirect or subtle communication is preferred, while in others, a more direct and explicit approach is the norm. This can lead to situations where individuals from different cultural backgrounds misinterpret the intentions or emotions behind the words being spoken.Furthermore, cultural biases and stereotypes can also play a significant role in perpetuating cultural misunderstandings. Individuals often have preconceived notions about other cultures, which can lead them to make assumptions or judgments without fully understanding the nuances and complexities of that culture. These biases can be deeply ingrained and can be difficult to overcome, especially if individuals are not open to learning about and appreciating the diversity of cultures.The consequences of cultural misunderstandings can be far-reaching and can have a significant impact on personal and professional relationships, as well as on broader societal dynamics. In the workplace, for example, cultural misunderstandings can lead to miscommunication, conflicts, and a lack of trust, which can ultimately undermine the productivity and effectiveness of the organization. Inpersonal relationships, cultural misunderstandings can lead to hurt feelings, misunderstandings, and a breakdown in communication, making it difficult to build meaningful connections.To address the issue of cultural misunderstandings, it is essential to foster a greater understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity. This can be achieved through education, exposure to different cultures, and a willingness to engage in open and respectful dialogue. By learning about the customs, traditions, and values of other cultures, individuals can develop a more nuanced and empathetic perspective, which can help them navigate cross-cultural interactions more effectively.Additionally, organizations and institutions can play a crucial role in promoting cultural understanding by implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives, providing cross-cultural training, and creating opportunities for cultural exchange and collaboration. These efforts can help to break down barriers, promote mutual understanding, and create more inclusive and harmonious environments.In conclusion, cultural misunderstandings are a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a concerted effort to address. By fostering a greater appreciation for cultural diversity, improving communication skills, and challenging our own biases and preconceptions, we can work towards a more inclusive andunderstanding world, where cultural differences are celebrated rather than feared.。
线上交流和面对面利弊英语作文The Pros and Cons of Online Communication versus Face-to-Face Interaction.In the digital age, communication has transformed in ways that are both remarkable and profound. Two predominant modes of communication that have emerged are online communication and face-to-face interaction. While both have their unique advantages and disadvantages, it is essential to understand these differences to make informed choices about when and how to communicate effectively.Online Communication: Advantages.1. Convenience and Accessibility: Online communication, whether through emails, social media, or video conferencing tools, allows individuals to connect regardless of geographical location. This flexibility eliminates the need for physical proximity, making it easier to stay in touch with far-flung friends and family.2. Ability to Reflect and Edit: When communicating online, individuals have the luxury of time to craft their messages. This allows for more thoughtful and considered responses, as well as the option to edit or clarify messages before sending them.3. Enhanced Privacy: In some cases, online communication offers a higher degree of privacy than face-to-face interactions. Users can control who sees their posts, messages, and other digital footprints, providing a sense of security and anonymity.4. Greater Connectivity: Online platforms often connect individuals with shared interests, passions, or beliefs. This ability to form communities and networks can foster a sense of belonging and connection that might be harder to achieve in person.Face-to-Face Interaction: Advantages.1. Nonverbal Communication: Face-to-face communicationallows for the exchange of nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice. These cues are often critical in understanding the emotional context and true meaning behind spoken words.2. Immediate Feedback: When communicating face-to-face, individuals can receive immediate feedback from their interlocutors. This feedback loop, whether it's a nod of understanding or a questioning glance, helps clarify messages and ensure that both parties are on the same page.3. Stronger Bonds: Face-to-face interactions often foster deeper, more meaningful relationships. The ability to see and be seen by another person creates a stronger emotional connection and sense of trust.4. Reduces Miscommunication: In person, communicators can clarify misunderstandings or ambiguous statements in real-time, reducing the potential for miscommunication and confusion.Online Communication: Disadvantages.1. Lack of Nonverbal Cues: While online communication offers convenience, it can sometimes lead to misunderstandings due to the absence of nonverbal cues. Without facial expressions, tone of voice, or body language, it can be challenging to interpret the emotional context of messages.2. Distractions and Interruptions: Online communication is often subject to distractions and interruptions, such as notifications from other apps or incoming messages. These distractions can disrupt conversations and make itdifficult to maintain focus.3. Potential for Misuse: Online communication can sometimes be misused for malicious purposes, such as cyberbullying, trolling, or the spread of misinformation. These negative behaviors can erode trust and damage relationships.Face-to-Face Interaction: Disadvantages.1. Limited Accessibility: Face-to-face interactions are inherently limited by geography and physical proximity.This can create barriers for individuals who are separated by distance or unable to meet in person due to physical constraints.2. Limited Time: Unlike online communication, face-to-face interactions are typically constrained by time. Meetings and conversations must be scheduled and adhere to specific timeframes, which can limit their effectivenessand depth.3. Social Anxiety: Some individuals may experiencesocial anxiety or discomfort in face-to-face settings, making it difficult for them to communicate effectively. This can lead to feelings of isolation and exclusion.In conclusion, both online communication and face-to-face interaction have their unique strengths and weaknesses. The choice of which mode to use should be based on the context, purpose, and preferences of the individuals involved. In some cases, a combination of both may be themost effective approach, allowing for the benefits of both modes to be realized. Ultimately, the key is to maintain awareness of the limitations and potential pitfalls of each mode and to use them mindfully and responsibly.。
Reducing Miscommunication in Spoken Human-Machine Dialogue Laila Dybkjær, Niels Ole Bernsen and Hans DybkjærCentre for Cognitive Science, Roskilde UniversityPO Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmarkemails: laila@cog.ruc.dk, nob@cog.ruc.dk, dybkjaer@cog.ruc.dkphone: (+45) 46 75 77 11 fax: (+45) 46 75 45 02AbstractThis paper presents a principled approach to reducing the occurrence of communication failure in spoken language dialogue systems. A set of principles for co-operative human-machine dialogue has been devel-oped based on the development of the dialogue com-ponent of a spoken language dialogue system and on human-human dialogue theory. The principles have been tested on the dialogue corpus from a controlled user test of the implemented system. The paper dem-onstrates how the principles enabled systematic clas-sification and analysis of the user test data on system miscommunication. In addition, the user test con-firmed the broad scope of the principles as only mi-nor additions and revisions were needed to provide a complete classification of the test data. The principles may have other uses in addition to that of test data analysis and dialogue evaluation. Potentially, they might serve as guidelines for the design of coopera-tive dialogue during early dialogue design.1. IntroductionIt is the system designer’s task to prevent human-machine miscommunication from seriously damaging the user’s task performance. Such prevention is done in two ways. One is to prevent miscommunication from occurring in the first place, the other is to prevent miscommunication, once it has occurred, from producing task failure. Given current speech and language technologies, the possibilities of on-line handling of clarification and repair meta-commu-nication are seriously limited. Furthermore, miscommuni-cation always leads to additional user-system exchanges. It follows that the goal of reducing the amount of miscom-munication that will occur is a highly important one. Re-duced meta-communication is a source of increased dia-logue quality and efficiency.On-line repair and clarifica-tion meta-communication will still be needed, of course.In particular the speech recognition capabilities of spoken language dialogue systems (SLDSs) are still fragile. Meta-communication functionality is needed to overcome the effects of system misrecognitions. In addition, users will inevitably provide input which, although recognised by the system, requires clarification or repair dialogue.This paper proposes principled ways of reducing the occurrence of communication failure in SLDSs and pre-sents a systematic classification of test data on miscom-munication. The results presented are based on the devel-opment and controlled user testing of the dialogue compo-nent of the Danish dialogue system. The system is an SLDS in the domain of flight ticket reservation. The dia-logue model of the system had to satisfy several techno-logical constraints which were mainly imposed by the choice of hardware and the speech recogniser, while at the same time being as natural as possible. Those constraints effectively prevented the use of user-initiated domain communication. Fortunately, however, the ticket reserva-tion task is a well-structured task, i.e. the information to be exchanged in order to achieve the task goal is to a large extent predetermined. The ticket reservation task thus lends itself to system-directed domain communication in which the user responds to questions asked by the system. With respect to meta-communication, on the other hand, the dialogue is mixed-initiative. Whenever needed, users may initiate meta-communication to repair system misun-derstanding or lack of understanding by using one of the keywords ‘change’ and ‘repeat’.Given the approach to dialogue initiative just described, it was crucial to reduce the number of cases in which users might be inclined to take other forms of dialogue initia-tive, such as asking questions, providing information which the system had not asked for or initiating less con-strained forms of meta-communication. This is why the issue of dialogue cooperativity became central to our de-sign of the dialogue structure. We had to optimise system dialogue cooperativity in order to prevent cases such as those described from occurring. To this end, we have de-veloped a set of general principles to be observed in the design of cooperative, spoken human-machine dialogue. The principles of cooperative dialogue design were de-veloped on the basis of a Wizard of Oz (WOZ) corpus col-lected during dialogue model development and consoli-dated through analytic comparison with a body of princi-ples of cooperative human-human dialogue. The principles were then tested on a corpus of dialogues collected duringa controlled user test of the implemented Danish SLDS. Section 2 briefly presents the development and consolida-tion of the principles and describes the user test. Section 3 provides a systematic classification, illustration and over-view of the user test data based on the principles. Section 4 briefly discusses user errors and Section 5 concludes the paper.2. Principles of Cooperative Dialogue Design The system runs on a PC with a DSP board and is ac-cessed over the telephone. It is a walk-up-and-use applica-tion which uses robust parsing to understand speaker-independent continuous spoken Danish with a vocabulary of approximately 500 words. The prototype runs in close-to-real-time and is representative of advanced current sys-tems. Comparable SLDSs are (Aust & Oerder 1995; Cole et al. 1994; Eckert et al. 1995).2.1 Dialogue Model Development and Principles of Cooperative DialogueThe dialogue model was developed by the Wizard of Oz (WOZ) experimental prototyping method in which a per-son simulates the system to be designed (Fraser & Gilbert 1991; Dybkjær, Bernsen, & Dybkjær 1993). Development was iterated until the dialogue model satisfied the design constraints on, i.a., maximum and average user utterance length (10 and 4 words, respectively). The dialogues were recorded, transcribed, analysed and used as a basis for improving the dialogue model. The seven WOZ iterations yielded a transcribed corpus of 125 task-oriented human-machine dialogues corresponding to approximately seven hours of spoken dialogue. A total of 24 different subjects were involved in the iterations. Dialogues were based on written task descriptions (scenarios).A major concern during WOZ was to detect problems of user-system interaction that might lead to miscommunica-tion or actually did so. We eventually used the following two approaches to systematically discover such problems: (i) prior to each WOZ iteration, we matched the scenarios to be used against the current dialogue model by perform-ing designer walk-throughs of the dialogue model based on the scenarios. The model was represented as a graph structure with system phrases in the nodes and expected contents of user answers along the edges. A deviation from the graph would indicate a potential dialogue design prob-lem which should be removed, if possible. (ii) The re-corded dialogues were plotted onto the dialogue model graph. As in (i), graph deviations indicated potential dia-logue design problems. All deviations were marked and their causes analysed whereupon the dialogue model was revised, if necessary (Dybkjær, Bernsen, & Dybkjær 1996b).At the end of the WOZ design phase, the problems of interaction uncovered during WOZ were analysed and represented as violations of principles of cooperative dia-logue. Each problem was considered a case in which the system in addressing the user had violated a principle of cooperative dialogue. The principles of cooperative dia-logue were made explicit, based on the problems analysis. The WOZ corpus analysis led to the identification of 14 principles of cooperative human-machine dialogue based on analysis of 120 examples of user-system interaction problems (Bernsen, Dybkjær, & Dybkjær 1996a; Dybkjær, Bernsen, & Dybkjær 1996b). If the principles were ob-served in the design of the system’s dialogue turns, we hypothesised, this would serve to reduce the occurrence of user dialogue behaviour that the system had not been de-signed to handle and which might lead to miscommunica-tion.2.2 Consolidation of the Principles of Cooperative DialogueHaving developed the principles of cooperative system dialogue, we became aware of the similarity between our work and Gricean cooperativity theory. We analytically compared our principles with Grice’s Cooperative Princi-ple (CP) and maxims (Grice 1975). Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP) says that, to act cooperatively in conversa-tion, one should make one’s “conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which one is engaged”. Grice proposes that the CP can be explicated in terms of four groups of simple maxims which are not claimed to be jointly exhaustive nor to have been generated on a principled theoretical basis other than the CP itself (Figure 1). As a result of the comparison be-tween our initial principles and Grice’s maxims, the prin-ciples achieved their present form as shown in Figure 1. A detailed comparison with Grice’s work is presented else-where (Bernsen, Dybkjær, & Dybkjær 1996a). Briefly, the main difference between Grice’s work and ours is that the maxims were developed to account for cooperativity in human-human dialogue, whereas our principles were de-veloped to account for cooperativity in human-machine dialogue. Grice focused on the inferences which an inter-locutor is able to make when the speaker deliberately vio-lates one of the maxims in order to make a dialogue con-tribution through what Grice calls ‘conversational impli-cature’. Our primary interest rather is in non-deliberate violations of maxims and principles. It is exactly when a human or an SLDS non-deliberately violates a maxim that miscommunication is likely to occur. However, whether violated deliberately or non-deliberately, the principles or maxims are the same and their function remains that of helping to achieve the shared dialogue goal as directly and smoothly as possible.Comparison between Grice’s maxims and our principles produced a clear-cut result. The principles include the maxims as a subset. In addition, the principles manifestaspects of cooperative task-oriented dialogue which were not addressed by Grice. The distinction b etween principle and aspect is important because an aspect represents the property of dialogue addressed by one or several particular maxims or principles. Finally, the comparison suggested the distinction between generic and specific principles. As shown in Figure 1, Grice's maxims are all generic. How-ever, a generic principle may subsume one or more spe-cific principles which specialise the generic principle to certain classes of dialogue phenomena. Although sub-sumed byDIALOGUE ASPECT GPNO.SPNO.GENERIC OR SPECIFIC PRINCIPLEGroup 1: Informativeness GP1 *Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).SP1 Be fully explicit in communicating to users the commitments they have made.SP2 Provide feedback on each piece of information provided by the user.GP2 *Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.Group 2: GP3 *Do not say what you believe to be false.Truth and evidence GP4 *Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.Group 3:RelevanceGP5 *Be relevant, i.e. be appropriate to the immediate needs at each stage of the transaction. Group 4: GP6 *Avoid obscurity of expression.Manner GP7 *Avoid ambiguity.SP3 Provide same formulation of the same question (or address) to users everywhere in thesystem’s dialogue turns.GP8 *Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).GP9 *Be orderly.Group 5:Partner asymmetry GP10 Inform the dialogue partners of important non-normal characteristics which they should take into account in order to behave cooperatively in dialogue. Ensure the feasibility ofwhat is required of them.SP4 Provide clear and comprehensible communication of what the system can and cannot do.SP5 Provide clear and sufficient instructions to users on how to interact with the system.Group 6: GP11 Take partners’ relevant background knowledge into account.Background knowledge SP6 Take into account possible (and possibly erroneous) user inferences by analogy fromrelated task domains.SP7 Separate whenever possible between the needs of novice and expert users (user-adaptivedialogue).GP12 Take into account legitimate partner expectations as to your own background knowledge.SP8 Provide sufficient task domain knowledge and inference.Group 7: GP13 Initiate repair or clarification meta-communication in case of communication failure. Repair and SP9 Provide ability to initiate repair if system understanding has failed.clarification SP10 Initiate clarification meta-communication in case of inconsistent user input.SP11 Initiate clarification meta-communication in case of ambiguous user input.Figure 1. Principles of cooperative system dialogue. GP means generic principle. SP means specific principle. The principles that were not found violated in the user test are indicated in italics. Grice’s maxims are marked with an asterisk.generic principles, we believe that specific principles are important in SLDS dialogue design and evaluation. If gen-erality is all we need, one principle is enough, such as “Be cooperative” or Grice’s CP. However, such general expres-sions are not very helpful in telling us what to look for in the WOZ data or in the data from a user test. The generic principles constitute a distinct improvement and the specific principles provide more focus still.Some of the specific principles may hold only for spo-ken human-machine dialogue and not for human-human dialogue. For example, SP3 (provide same formulation of the same question (or address) to users everywhere in the system’s dialogue turns) should not be practiced in hu-man-human dialogue because this would lead to very mo-notonous dialogues. Moreover, interlocutors might still interpret the same question in different ways depending on the context. However, human-computer dialogues typically have a very restricted context. This minimises the risk that users will interpret different occurrences of an identically expressed question in different ways.In addition, SP3 has two positive side-effects: (i) since users tend to model the system’s vocabulary, SP3 may help limit users’ vocabu-lary; (ii) if the computer behaves too much like a human interlocutor, users may forget that they are talking to a computer or may over-estimate the dialogue skills of the system. This will increase user-system miscommunication. None of the principles appear to conflict in general. However, concrete SLDS design situations may generatedifficult trade-offs. For instance, when designing the in-troduction to our SLDS we had to trade off GP2 and GP8, on the one hand, and SP4 on the other. The difficult ques-tion was how much information is sufficient but not too much, given the immense differences in communicative skills between humans and machines. This question is not made easier by the facts that users are very different and that limited distinction between the needs of novice and expert users (SP7) does not reflect the detailed needs of each single user. Another problem became apparent in the WOZ experiments when the system did not explicitly communicate to users the commitments they had made (against SP1) with respect to change of reservation. This led some users to ask for confirmation. On the other hand, several users had in the previous WOZ iteration com-plained that the system provided too much information in general (violation of GP2). Our present conclusion is that users appreciate explicit confirmation of the commitments they make during ticket reservation, i.e. that the confirma-tion conforms to GP2. In information tasks in which users do not commit themselves to anything, implicit feedback may well be sufficient.2.3 The User Test: Identification of Dialogue Inter-action ProblemsWhen the system had been implemented and debugged, a controlled user test was carried out. In this test, a simu-lated speech recogniser was used (Bernsen, Dybkjær, & Dybkjær 1995). A wizard keyed in the users’ answers into the simulated recogniser. The simulation ensured that ty-pos were automatically corrected and that input to the parser corresponded to an input string which could have been recognised by the real recogniser. In this set-up, rec-ognition accuracy would be 100% as long as users ex-pressed themselves in accordance with the vocabulary and grammars known to the system. Otherwise, the simulated recogniser would turn the user input into a string which only contained words and grammatical constructs from the recogniser's vocabulary and rules of grammar.The test was based on 20 different scenarios which had been designed to enable exploration of all aspects of the task structure. Twelve novice subjects, mostly professional secretaries, participated in the user test. The subjects con-ducted the dialogues over the telephone in their normal work environments. They were given a total of 50 particu-lar tasks based on 48 scenarios. A task consists in ordering one or more tickets for one route. The number of recorded dialogues was 57 because subjects sometimes reiterated a failed dialogue and eventually succeeded with the task. A dialogue is one path through the dialogue structure.Each dialogue was recorded and all transactions be-tween the individual system modules were logged. The recorded dialogues were transcribed and analysed. The analysis aimed at detecting problems of dialogue interac-tion and was done as follows. Based on the dialogue struc-ture, a template was built which contained the system’s questions. For each scenario, normative system questions and user answers were filled into the template. The key contents of the actual dialogues were then plotted into the template (Dybkjær, Bernsen, & Dybkjær 1996a). Com-parison between normative and actual system and user utterances led to the identification of three main classes of interaction problems: (1) linguistic problems, (2) problems of dialogue interaction and (3) other problems, such as cases of system breakdown. (2) splits into (a) dialogue design problems and (b) user errors. The following section focuses on (a).PRINCIPLEVIOLATEDCOOPERATIVITY PROBLEM No. TF CAUSE/REPAIRGP1 Less information than required provided by system (final question too open; withholding important information, re-quested or not). 19 System question design (4).System response design (15).GP3 False information provided by system (on departures). 2 Database design.GP5 Irrelevant information provided by system. 2 1 Speech recognition design.GP6 Obscure system utterance (grammatically incorrect re-sponse; departure information). 7 System response grammar design(1).System response design (6).GP7 Ambiguous system utterance (question on point of depar-ture).2 System question design.GP10 System requirements not followed (indirect response,change through comments, asking questions, answering sev-eral questions at a time).33 Unreasonable system demands onusers. Improve the system to handlethe violations.SP2 (GP1) Missing system feedback on user information. 2 1 System response feedback design. SP4 (GP10) Missing or unclear information on what the system canand cannot do (system does not listen during its own dialogueturns).33 1 Speech prompt design.SP5 (GP10) Missing or unclear instructions to users on how to interactwith the system (under-supported user navigation: use of2 1 User instruction design.‘change’; round-trip reservations).SP6 (GP11) Lacking anticipation of domain misunderstanding by anal-ogy.3 User information design.SP8 (GP12) Missing system domain knowledge and inference (temporalinference; inference from negated binary option).4 System inference design.SP10 (GP13) Missing clarification of inconsistent user input (systemjumps to wrong conclusion).5 System clarification question design.SP11 (GP13) Missing clarification of ambiguous user input (systemjumps to wrong conclusion).5 2 System clarification question design.Figure 2. Typology of the 119 problems of cooperative dialogue design identified in the user test. The number of occurrences of each problem is shown as are the responsibilities for transaction failure (TF) per problem type. The rightmost column shows the global cause(s) of the problems and hence what needs to be repaired to prevent them from occurring.3. Classification of Dialogue Design Problems The principles presented in Figure 1 were used to classify the dialogue interaction problems that had been identified in the user test. Sixteen of the 13 GPs and 11 SPs (Figure 1) were found violated. In the following, the identified dia-logue interaction problems are analysed and discussed as violations of the principles for cooperative dialogue. We then discuss problem classification and the coverage of the principles. Finally, the non-violated principles are exam-ined to answer the question why they were not found vio-lated in the data.3.1 Violated principlesFigure 2 presents an overview of the problem types that were identified in the user test. The figure only contains 13 GPs and SPs. However, although no direct violation of GP11, GP12 and GP13 was found, these principles are regarded as violated because one or more of the specific principles subsumed by each of them were violated. For each violated GP and SP, the identified cooperativity prob-lems are briefly characterised with global indications of the causes and repair of those problems.In the analysis, each identified design problem was (a) characterised with respect to its symptoms, (b) a diagnosis was made, and (c) a cure was proposed. Representative examples of violations of each of the principles are pre-sented in Figures 3 to 15. In these figures, S means symp-tom, D diagnosis and C cure. S means system and U user. In several cases, the presented user-system exchange (S) contains more than one problem and thus violates more than one principle. However, each figure only diagnoses a single dialogue design problem. We shall sometimes refer to the co-existing problems in an exchange without providing a full symptom-diagnosis-cure description of them.S: S: There is no departure at 21:00, the closest other red depar-tures are at 19:45 and 22:40. Do you want one of these depar-tures? U: Yes. S: Which? U: Repeat; S: There is no departure at 21:00. Which?.D: The system only repeats part of its previous response exclud-ing the list of possible departures. C: Let the system repeat its entire previous utterance since it is impossible to know in advance which part a user will be most interested in having repeated.Figure 3. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue G33a. The violated principle is GP1: Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).S: S: At which time? U: Morning. S: The green morning depar-tures are fully booked (happens twice).D: There is no grammar failure. According to the flight file the first departure on the given day is 9:15 which is not considered morning but 'before noon' by the database, and which is not fully booked. Therefore, the system's message should have been that there are no morning departures.C: Find and repair the bug in the database.Figure 4. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue G13b. The violated principle is GP3: Do not say what you believe to be false.S: S: At which date will the journey start? U: The journey starts on January 23. S: Today is not the 23rd of January (happens twice).D: A system misrecognition (grammar failure) triggers an error message which may seem rather irrelevant to the user who did not mention today at all.C: Two possibilities: 1. The grammar should handle the input in question (the journey start on January 23). 2. Use threshold val-ues (score values) to evaluate the probability of correct recogni-tion and start repair if the score is too low rather than producing a system response which in all likelihood is based on misunder-standing.Figure 5. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue G22a. The violated principle is GP5: Be relevant, i.e. be appropriate to the immediate needs at each stage of the transaction.S: S: At which time? U: He wants to depart at 10:45. S: There is no departure at 10:45, the closest other departure is at 17:00. Do you want this departure?D: The system provides misleading information since the depar-ture at 17:00 is the only departure that day. The user is in doubt whether or not there is an earlier departure.C: The system should provide non-obscure information, e.g. by saying that the departure at 17:00 is the only departure that day. Figure 6. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue T53a. The violated principle is GP6: Avoid obscurity of expression.S: S: Where does the journey start? U: It starts in Hellerup.D: Hellerup is not the name of an airport. It is a suburb of Co-penhagen and is not in the system’s vocabulary. The user consid-ers the point of departure to be the traveller’s home rather than the airport. This might be a priming effect from the scenario. C: Option 1. Add more names (hardly feasible). Option 2. The system should ask for the departure airport and not just where the travel starts (or ends).Figure 7. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue T52a. The violated principle is GP7: Avoid ambiguity.S: U: Yes, please. I would like to have 9:40. S: 22:40. At which date will the return journey start? U: No, 9:40.D: The user is too occupied with the problem to remember to use the keyword ‘change’.C: ‘Change’ is not natural. Prefer mixed-initiative meta-communication.Figure 8. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue T22a. The violated principle is GP10: Inform the dialogue partners of im-portant non-normal characteristics which they should take into account in order to behave cooperatively in dialogue. Ensure the feasibility of what is required of them.S: S: Do you want a return ticket? U: No, we will book that one later. [Pause] It’s okay. They are not going back. S: Red dis-count may be obtained on certain weekday departures and green discount may be obtained in weekends. In case of red discount the home journey may only start after two days at the earliest. Are you particularly interested in discount?D: There is no direct system feedback on the user's answer to the question whether s/he wants a return journey. Hence it is diffi-cult to detect misunderstandings at once unless one knows the system/domain well. Discount can only be obtained on return tickets.[Continued from previous page.]However, if the user does not know this (which in the current case s/he apparently does not), the misunderstanding will only show later in the dialogue when the system asks for a return date.C: Provide system feedback to all user answers.Figure 9. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue T21a. The violated principle is SP2: Provide feedback on each piece of information provided by the user. Boldface shows overlapping user speech.S: S: At 19:50. U: Yes. S: You have now booked ...D: Phatic. A common way for humans of expressing that one follows the conversation and is interested during the interlocu-tor’s turn. Pauses in particular may be filled in this way. How-ever, the system does not listen during its own turns, and users were not informed of this.C: Inform users that the system does not listen during its own turns.Figure 10. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue T41a. The violated principle is SP4: Provide clear and comprehensible com-munication of what the system can and cannot do. Boldface shows overlapping user speech. S: S: At which time? U: At 18:10. S: There is no departure at 18:10. The closest other departures are at 18:00 and 22:00. Do you want one of these departures? U: No. S: At which time? U: 15:45 from Esbjerg.D: The user is supposed to book a round-trip ticket which s/he, as is common, perceives as a return ticket. Round-trip tickets, however, can only be handled by the system as two separate single reservations. When asked about the home departure hour for the second time, the user tries and fails to input a departure airport for the home journey that is different from the arrival airport for the out journey. The system does not provide informa-tion on how to handle roundtrips.C: The system should inform users on its limitations with re-spect to roundtrip reservations.Figure 11. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue G54a1-2. The violated principle is SP5: Provide clear and sufficient in-structions to users on how to interact with the system.S: S: Do you want more? U: Did I get a discount?D: The user wants discount and does not know that this is un-available on one-way journeys.C: The system should take into account users’ background knowledge by mentioning that, if the user has chosen one-way tickets, discount cannot be obtained.Figure 12. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue T13a. The violated principle is SP6: Take into account possible (and possi-bly erroneous) user inferences by analogy from related task do-mains.S: S: At which time [out journey]? U: A quarter past seven. ... S: At which time [home journey]? U: A quarter to six. S: The home journey must not be earlier than the out journey.D: Hour of departure for home journey. The system checks the temporal relation with the out journey. The home departure time 'a quarter to six' is understood as am by default. However, it is not ambiguous in the present context and should have been understood as 17:45.C: Provide a general solution to the class of problems exempli-fied by: if out and home journey are on the same day and the home departure time is 'a quarter to six' then understand the answer as '17:45'.Figure 13. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue T14a. The violated principle is SP8: Provide sufficient task domain knowl-edge and inference.S: S: Are you particularly interested in discount? U: Yes. S: At which date will the journey start? U: Monday. S: Monday Janu-ary 16. At which time? U: 7:20. S: There is no departure at 7:20. The closest other red departure is at 10:50. Do you want this departure?.D: There is, in fact, a departure at 7:20 but it does not offer dis-count. The system implicitly assigns priority to discount over departure time without sufficient reason.C: S should ask U about priority, e.g.: “7:20 is not a discount departure. Red discount can be obtained on the departures at x, y and z. Which departure do you want?”Figure 14. A dialogue design problem from Dialogue G14a. The violated principle is SP10: Initiate clarification meta-commu-nication in case of inconsistent user input.。
