Cited by 44Innovative Human-Technology InteractionUsability and User Interface DesignSpeech and dialogue systems

Metaphors in Voice User Interfaces: A Slippery Fish

Open access
Desai, Smit, Twidale, Michael·2023·ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Abstract

We explore a range of different metaphors used for Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) by designers, end-users, manufacturers, and researchers using a novel framework derived from semi-structured interviews and a literature review. We focus less on the well-established idea of metaphors as a way for interface designers to help novice users learn how to interact with novel technology, and more on other ways metaphors can be used. We find that metaphors people use are contextually fluid, can change with the mode of conversation, and can reveal differences in how people perceive VUIs compared to other devices. Not all metaphors are helpful, and some may be offensive. Analyzing this broader class of metaphors can help understand, perhaps even predict problems. Metaphor analysis can be a low-cost tool to inspire design creativity and facilitate complex discussions about sociotechnical issues, enabling us to spot potential opportunities and problems in the situated use of technologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3609326

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • By incorporating different metaphors into AI systems, designers can create shared meanings that help users express nuanced views about, and experiences with, an AI agent.

    “By incorporating different metaphors into AI systems, designers can create shared meanings that help users express nuanced views about, and experiences with, an AI agent [16].”

    From Where Do I 'Add the Egg'?: Exploring Agency and Ownership in AI Creative Co-Writing Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Conclusion (section 8; page unavailable) says metaphors can help people discuss what they want and do not want from future technologies, supporting the claim about expressing views. But section 6.2 notes that users’ metaphors may differ from those provided by designers, and section 2.3.2 warns that explicitly building metaphors into interfaces can be problematic. The paper does not establish that incorporating different metaphors into AI systems creates shared meanings. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The mental models evoked by a metaphorical comparison facilitate users' familiarization with a system by creating a set of expectations around its functionality.

    “The mental models evoked by a metaphorical comparison facilitate users' familiarization with a system by creating a set of expectations around its functionality [16].”
  • Users fluctuate between human and non-human metaphors seamlessly without cognitive dissonance.

    “Moreover, users fluctuated between human and non-human metaphors seam-lessly without cognitive dissonance.”
  • Users employ a broad range of human metaphors and also non-human metaphors to describe VUIs.

    “They found that users did employ a broad range of human metaphors to describe VUIs, but they also used non-human metaphors (e.g., tower, “Computer” from Star Trek, genie, encyclopedia).”
  • Desai & Twidale found a great imbalance between deployments of VUIs in human and non-human roles.

    “Desai & Twidale [24], in their framework for metaphor contex-tualization, found a great imbalance between deployments of VUIs in human and non-human roles.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 144 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Apple Computer, Inc. 1992. Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines . Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  2. J. Dewey. 1929. The Quest for Certainty . Minton, Balch, Oxford, England.
  3. Alan Dix, Tom Ormerod, Michael Twidale, Corina Sas, Paula Alexandra Silva, and Lorna McKnight. 2006. Why bad ideas are a good idea. In Proceedings of HCIEd.2006-1 Inventivity , Ballina/Killaloe. http://w w w.hcibook.com/alan/ papers/HCIed2006-badideas/
  4. Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 1983. Mental Models : Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Conscious- ness . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved August 2, 2021 from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal- 00702919
  5. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By . University of Chicago Press.
  6. Brenda Laurel and S. Joy Mountford. 1990. The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design . Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA.
  7. Henry Lieberman and Ted Selker. 2003. Agents for the user interface. In Handbook of Agent Technology. , Jeffrey Bradshaw (Ed.). MIT Press, 1-21.
  8. Microsoft. 1995. Windows Interface Guidelines for Software Design . Microsoft Press.
  9. Masahiro Mori. 1970. The uncanny valley: The original essay by masahiro mori -IEEE spectrum. IEEE Spec- trum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News . Retrieved June 6, 2021 from https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/ robotics/humanoids/the-uncanny-valley
  10. Dennis C. Neale and John M. Carroll. 1997. Chapter 20 -The role of metaphors in user interface design. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.).
  11. Lucy A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication . Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Desai, S., & Twidale, M.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
Published
2023-09-25
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
1-37
ISSN
  • 1073-0516 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7325
OpenAlex
W4384406040
Cited by
42
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13
FWCI
7.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
voice user interface, metaphor, user perception, end-user perspective, socio-technical challenges, design creativity, conversation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review