Hi Jeff, some barely reasoned opinion from an IX programmer..
> For example, I've visited several sites that automatically open a live > chat > window if the user has been inactive on a page for over a certain length > of > time. To me, this seems like a poor experience for a couple of reasons. I > think most users like to research online because it offers time, privacy, > and quietness. On the web, there are no sales people popping up to ask if > you need any help. Also, popping up automatically, without the user taking > any action seems like a jarring experience. I think a good analytical approach could be based on expectation and quality of experience. if the site is purely commercial, aggressive behavior is unexpected in a (commercial or similar / associated) quality oriented user experience. Aggressive behavior immediately "makes" the experience. It's good for very few things because it's only expected in very few cases. Here are the kinds of live chat questions I'm thinking about: > - When should it be available? All the time, or only during certain tasks? the subjects for which live-chat supporters (staff) are prepared to discuss should include access to live chat. also this raises the question of continuity, enabling the chat (frame) to continue across page views. (and a nice feature would permit the support staff to nav the user's browser with an 'accept action?' dialog). - Is there a way it can "recommend itself" without being obnoxious? I would think that any such interactive feature should be animated in its visual representation. i'm thinking in the context of an otherwise static visual presentation, so the difference is clear. otherwise a "tool icon" type visual related to the visual representation of the chat session (see more below). - What kind of delay is acceptable between requesting help and being > connected with a person? definitely needs an immediate response (< 2s) and then progress / updates (3-5s?).. (i'm thinking that 5s is a very long time) clicking on the web creates the expectation of instant gratification. managing that expectation in the case of non-machine (human) interaction is important. - What's the best way to handle the chat window? Should it go inside the web > > page as an AJAX pop-up, or should it open in a new window? never a new window.. should be contained like an ajax layer.. using some frames so it can travel across page views would be very good. - Does "click-to-callback" (user enters her phone number to have support > call her) make more sense than live web chat? not likely.. big privacy issue.. good web makes no assumption of trust. (unless there is trust, have an account..) What other considerations for live chat are there? the visual representation of the support function (staff person? company? support department?) is important. it wants to be visually differentiated from social chat or personal chat for good results. it wants to be "support chat" as in a kind of "professional chat". think, trust or confidence building (as realistically appropriate) plus a margin of protective insulation for both parties.. (and the backend should be the same visual).. Thanks for the help! > > Jeff Stevenson > is that interesting? john ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
