G: Command and Natural Languages Interface

1.0 Introduction:
Languages are a natural way to communicate. Communication with systems have evolved through
1. Initially, programming languages
2. Scripting languages
3. Database query
4. Command languages
In addition with menus and direct manipulation, why have languages? For some tasks,
Natural
Faster
For tasks with many options, most effective
Small footprint (screen, power, size)
Logistics: Generating help, verification, etc.

2.0 Command Line Interface (CLI)

A CLI displays a prompt the user types a command on the keyboard and executes the command. The computer executes the
command, providing textual output. It provides a means of expressing instructions to the computer directly using single
characters, whole word commands or abbreviations. It has very little help provided. The commands enable a user to quickly
and concisely instruct the computer what to do. The user requires the knowledge of the commands available and the syntax
for using them, commonly operates via DOS or MS-DOS shell, other examples are UNIX shell, dBase and GPSS
Advantages Disadvantages
1. Very flexible with the use of switches (options) 1. Requires the user to learn complex commands
2. Good for expert users - can quickly access commands or language
3. Uses the fewest system resources 2. Hidden features i.e. if you dont know the
4. potentially rapid for complex tasks, commands you wont know the features are there!
5. support macro capability 3. Not very good for novice users
6. appeals to "power" users, 4. poor error handling
5. requires substantial training and memorization,

Command Line Interface Applications

System administration
Engineering applications
Scientific applications
Ideal for visually impaired users!!!
3.0 Natural Languages Interface
Natural language is one of many 'interface styles' (or 'interaction modalities') that can be used in the dialog between a human
user and a computer. There is a significant appeal in being able to address a machine and direct it's operations by using the
same language we use in everyday human to human interaction.
Conventional wisdom in the field of human-computer interaction, however, is that natural language is nowhere near as an
attractive an interface alternative as it initially appears. The literature tends to focus on failures of such interfaces to achieve
what was expected of them. As an example, an introductory human-computer interaction text dismisses natural language
interfaces on the grounds that language is ambiguous. Successful implementations are thus characterized as being sufficiently
restricted in syntax or lexicon as to call into doubt their status as natural language (Dix et. al. 1993).
Usually, the degree of ambiguity in natural language is considered too extreme for it ever to be used effectively as an interface
style (Hill, 1983). Further, when systems use constraints on the structures and lexicon of a system to limit ambiguity, it is
assumed the user will be required to learn what structures are acceptable, making natural language no more useful or
learnable than formal command languages. Despite the lack of usefulness predicted by such accounts, some restricted
language systems maintain most of the advantages associated with natural language interfaces. Usually most problems are
shown not to be due to ambiguity but to excessive expectation of the capability of the system on the part of the user or the
use of world knowledge that is not reflected in the computer's knowledge base. Like any other interface style, the mapping
between the user's cognitive model of the system and the capabilities of the natural language interface is not perfect. To
remedy this, certain guidelines should be considered for the use of the style. Many reports suggest such guidelines, but only
for their particular area of experience a broader listing would help when considering natural language as an interface style for
a design. Considering this, some further arguments against natural languages are examined, as well as successful
implementations that manage to avoid the problems. From these successes, a set of guidelines for the inclusion of natural
language in an interface will be collected.
Criticisms
An unrestricted natural language interface is generally considered an enticing prospect because, if it could be implemented, it
would offer many advantages:
1. it would be easy to learn and
2. easy to remember, because its structure and vocabulary are already familiar to the user
because the same language could be used for many application, there might be fewer transfer problems between
applications they are particularly powerful because of the multitude of ways in which to accomplish an action and they
also allow considerable flexibility in executing the steps of a task.
Unfortunately, natural language is often
1. ambiguous and is
2. Dependent on a great deal of world knowledge.
In order to implement a working natural language system one must usually restrict it to cover only a limited subset of the
vocabulary and syntax of a full natural language. This allows ambiguity to be reduced and processing time to be kept within
reasonable bounds. In order to still be considered a natural language interface, most of the positive traits of a general natural
language interface would have to be maintained. To retain the properties of ease of use and ease of remembering, the
limitations of the system must somehow be conveyed to the user without requiring them to learn the rules explicitly.
Additionally, natural language interfaces have in the past led users to anthropomorphize the computer, or at least to attribute
more intelligence than is warranted to it. This leads to unrealistic expectations of the capabilities of the system on the part of
the user. Such expectations will make it difficult to learn the restrictions of the system if they attribute to much capability to
it, and they will lead to disappointment when the system fails to perform as expected
Natural language interfaces (NLI), if they are the only form of interaction, do not take advantage of the capabilities of the
computer -- those strategies that work in human-human communication are probably not the best suited to human-computer
interactions, where the computer can display information many times faster than people can enter commands
The use of natural speech understanding is thought to suffer from the same problems as written natural language interfaces,
in addition to the problem that speech recognition itself has not been very successful.
Some natural language interfaces are so restricted as to little distinguish them from command-line languages. If the system
restricts the possible structures and vocabulary available for interaction to such a degree that it is unlikely that a novice user
will even be able to be begin using the system, then the natural language system has failed in its mandate. For instance an
interface that serves only to provide a few more ways of entering a command, without allowing for common linguistic
transformations of the command, should probably not be called a natural language interface as an example). Though it may
be possible for a user to guess at the appropriate command syntax, they will be dissatisfied when they are unable to execute
compound commands or to use anything but the imperative voice.

Summary of NLI
One (popular) trend is to communicate with the computer using natural languages
This involves both input and output
Why is this hard/challenges
Subtleties (mood, accent, culture)
Context sensitive
Large user base
Current Applications:
Very restricted domains (stock trading phone system)
Processed input and/or output
Formatted texts (weather reports, tech reports, etc.)
Cant do: poems, freeform conversations
Rough translations help w/ getting the jist of most things e.g. language learners
Advantages of NLI
No need for training in a specialised command language
Extremely flexible and powerful
relieves burden of learning syntax
User is free to construct her own commands, frame her own questions, etc.
Disadvantages NLI
People find it difficult to stick to grammatical correct English
requires clarification dialog,
may require more keystrokes,
may not show context,
unpredictable
A well designed artificial language can say the same thing more concisely than natural language
 A natural language can mislead a user into believing the computer is more intelligent than it actually is