TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: MS Agent From:John Ballard <JohnBallard -at- DigitalCourseBooks -dot- com> To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:33:11 -0500
> Hi Peter,
> You wrote:
> As implemented in MS Office by MS, I agree that it
> sucks. I was
> referring to creative use of the technology as a
> training aid. If the
> technology is used properly, one can have several
> characters carrying on
> a conversation, that can vary with the user's input.
I agree completely. The key phrase is "creative use."
I've toyed with the idea of having two Agent characters
appear in a CBT and converse for entertainment and
introduction purposes. This is completely different
from Microsoft's implementation. I think Microsoft tried
to do way too much with Clippie. I think an agent should
only appear on rare occasions to introduce something new,
to make an announcement, or to "wake up" the user.
> I doubt the technology could do that. The MS agent
> calls on sophisticated algorithms using Bayesian
> Probability formulae to interpret the state of mind of
> the user. <snip>
I agree that the technology fails at interpreting what
users are doing and what they are trying to do.
The key problem is that Clippie appears
when he's not wanted. I think Agent characters
(even two at once) can be successful if they don't
try to guess at what users are doing.