Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 5–6, pp 743–759 | Cite as

A review of collocated multi-user TV

Examining the changing role of the TV in the multi-viewer, multi-screen home
  • Mark McGill
  • John H. Williamson
  • Stephen A. Brewster
Original Article

Abstract

The TV plays a central role in our homes, bringing friends and family together by providing a common reference point for live, on-demand and interactive media. However, the capabilities of the modern day TV poorly reflect this social, multi-user context. The TV is in the process of being supplemented, and in some cases replaced, by other devices and displays (e.g. phones, tablets) in what is termed “multi-screening”. This allows users to engage in separate and private activities alongside TV usage. The result of this is that users are “together alone” inhabiting private digital bubbles, their activity and interactions cut off from those around them. This paper outlines why facilitating multi-user use of the TV is important within the context of existing multi-screen usage, and reviews how we might go about designing TVs that better support the social contexts in which they reside. Firstly, we discuss how we interact with and share use of the TV, before examining how our TV usage has been augmented by multi-screening. We then review designs for multi-user TV: from shared-use TV interfaces, to using the TV as a medium by which multi-screen activity can be shared, to TVs capable of providing multiple independent physical views, allowing for both private and collaborative activities on a single shared display. Finally, we discuss new technologies that might have a part to play in determining the future role of the TV. This paper demonstrates that, contrary to existing usage, the TV can be of increasing relevance in the multi-user, multi-screen era.

Keywords

Multi-user TV Collaboration Multi-screening  Multi-view 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by Bang and Olufsen and the EPSRC. This publication only reflects the authors’ views.

References

  1. 1.
    Abe Y, Matsusako K, Kirimura K, Tamura M, Nakashima M, Ito T (2010) Tolerant sharing of a single-user application among multiple users in collaborative work. In: Companion proceedings of the ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW 2010) 2010, pp 555–556Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawala M, Beers AC, McDowall I, Fröhlich B, Bolas M, Hanrahan P (1997) The two-user responsive workbench: support for collaboration through individual views of a shared space. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH’97. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley, New York, pp 327–332Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballendat T, Marquardt N, Greenberg S (2010) Proxemic interaction: designing for a proximity and orientation-aware environment. In: ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, ITS’10, ACM, New York, pp 121–130Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birnholtz JP, Grossman T, Mak C, Balakrishnan R (2007) An exploratory study of input configuration and group process in a negotiation task using a large display. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’07. ACM, New York, pp 91–100Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell R, Felton R, Hoarse C (2014) Smart wallpaper. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video, Industry Track—TVX’14. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cesar P, Chorianopoulos K (2009) The evolution of TV systems, content, and users toward interactivity. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 2(4):373–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark A, Dünser A, Billinghurst M, Piumsomboon T, Altimira D (2011) Seamless interaction in space. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computer–human interaction conference, OzCHI’11. ACM, New York, pp 88–97Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clinch S, Davies N, Kubitza T, Friday A (2014) Ownership and trust in cyber-foraged displays. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on pervasive displays, PerDis’14. ACM, New York, vol 168, pp 168–173Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deloitte. Perspectives on TV: dual screen, catch-up, connected TV, advertising, and why people watch TV. MediaGuardian International Television Festival (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dodgson NA (2011) Multi-view autostereoscopic 3D display. In: Stanford workshop on 3D imaging. Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ducheneaut N, Moore RJ, Oehlberg L, Thornton JD, Nickell E (2008) Social TV: designing for distributed, sociable television viewing. Int J Hum Comput Interact 24(2):136–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ericsson Consumerlab. TV and Media: Identifying the needs of tomorrow’s video consumersGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Google. The New Multi-Screen World (slides). Google Think Insights (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenberg S (1990) Sharing views and interactions with single-user applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGOIS and IEEE CS TC-OA conference on office information systems, COCS’90. ACM, New York, pp 227–237Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross T, Stary C, Totter A (2005) User-centered awareness in computer-supported cooperative work-systems: structured embedding of findings from social sciences. Int J Hum Comput Interact 18(3):323–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gutwin C, Greenberg S (2002) A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Comput Support Coop Work 11(3):411–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hou J, Nam Y, Peng W, Lee KM (2012) Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on game experience. Comput Hum Behav 28(2):617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hritzuk N, Esquero I, Jones K (2013) Cross screen engagement. Microsoft Advertising 3586, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang EM, Harboe G, Tullio J, Novak A, Massey N, Metcalf CJ, Romano G (2009) Of social television comes home: a field study of communication choices and practices in TV-based text and voice chat. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’09. ACM, New York, pp 585–594Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ingrey M (2014) Triple-screening: a new phenomenonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim S, Cao X, Zhang H, Tan D (2012) Enabling concurrent dual views on common lcd screens. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’12. ACM, New York, pp 2175–2184Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kitamura Y, Konishi T, Yamamoto S, Kishino F (2001) Interactive stereoscopic display for three or more users. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH’01. ACM, New York, pp 231–240Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kreitmayer S, Laney R, Peake S, Rogers Y (2013) Sharing bubbles: reflections on offline multi-surface scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication, UbiComp’13 Adjunct. ACM, New York, pp 1405–1408Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kulik A, Kunert A, Beck S, Reichel R, Blach R, Zink A, Froehlich B (2011) C1x6: a stereoscopic six-user display for co-located collaboration in shared virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 2011 SIGGRAPH Asia conference, SA’11. ACM, New York, pp 188:1–188:12Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lalanne D, Lisowska Masson A (2011) A fitt of distraction: measuring the impact of distracters and multi-users on pointing efficiency. In: CHI’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, CHI EA’11. ACM, New York, pp 2125–2130Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lissermann R, Huber J, Schmitz M, Steimle J, Mühlhäuser M (2014) Permulin: Mixed-focus collaboration on multi-view tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’14. ACM, New York, pp 3191–3200Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lucero A, Jones M, Jokela T, Robinson S (2013) Mobile collocated interactions: taking an offline break together. Interactions 20(2):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matusik W, Forlines C, Pfister H (2008) Multiview user interfaces with an automultiscopic display. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI’08. ACM, New York, pp 363–366Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGill M, Boland D, Murray-Smith R, Brewster SA (2015) A dose of reality: overcoming usability challenges in VR head-mounted displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’15). ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McGill M, Williamson J, Brewster SA (2014) How to lose friends and alienate people: sharing control of a single-user TV system. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX’14). ACM Press, New York, pp 147–154Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McGill M, Williamson J, Brewster SA (2014) Mirror, mirror, on the wall: collaborative screen-mirroring for small groups. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX’14). ACM Press, New York, pp 87–94Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McGill M, Williamson J, Brewster SA (2015) It takes two (to co-view): collaborative multi-view TV. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX’15). ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McGill M, Williamson J, Brewster SA (June 2015) Who’s the fairest of them all: device mirroring for the connected home. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video (TVX’15). ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    MillwardBrown. Marketing in a multiscreen world. Technical report (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morris MR (2012) Web on the wall: Insights from a multimodal interaction elicitation study. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, ITS’12. ACM, New York, pp 95–104Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Müller J, Geier M, Dicke C, Spors S (2014) The boomroom: mid-air direct interaction with virtual sound sources. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’14. ACM, New York, pp 247–256Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nacenta MA, Jakobsen MR, Dautriche R, Hinrichs U, Dörk M, Haber J, Carpendale S (2012) The lunchtable: a multi-user, multi-display system for information sharing in casual group interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2012 international symposium on pervasive displays, PerDis’12. ACM, New York, pp 18:1–18:6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nielsen (2014) Australian Multi-Screen Report Q1. nielsen.com, pp 1–48Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noah S (2012) Giant TVs ‘bring families together’Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    NPD. Inception of Screen Sharing. npd.com (2013)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ofcom. Communications Market Report (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ofcom. Communications Market Report (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ofcom. Communications Market Report (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Peterka T, Kooima R, Girado J, Ge J, Sandin D, Johnson A, Leigh J, Schulze J, DeFanti T (2007) Dynallax: solid state dynamic parallax barrier autostereoscopic vr display. In: Virtual reality conference, 2007. VR’07. IEEE, pp 155–162Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pohl H, Murray-Smith R (2013) Focused and casual interactions: allowing users to vary their level of engagement. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’13. ACM, New York, pp 2223–2232Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Recombu (2013) Digital Divorce: 24 per cent of couples watch on-demand TV in different rooms—RecombuGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schmid O, Lisowska Masson A, Hirsbrunner B (2012) Collaborative web browsing: multiple users, multiple pages, concurrent access, one display. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems, EICS’12. ACM, New York, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schmidt K (2002) The problem with ‘awareness’: introductory remarks on ‘awareness in CSCW’. Comput Support Coop Work 11(3):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stewart J, Bederson BB, Druin A (1999) Single display groupware: a model for co-present collaboration. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’99. ACM, New York, pp 286–293Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tee K, Greenberg S, Gutwin C (2009) Artifact awareness through screen sharing for distributed groups. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67(9):677–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Terrenghi L, Quigley A, Dix A (2009) A taxonomy for and analysis of multi-person-display ecosystems. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 13(8):583–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thinkbox. Screen life: the view from the sofa (2012)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thinkbox. TV Together: a very social medium (2013)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thinkbox. Screen Life: TV advertising everywhere (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Truscott-Howell J (2014) Compelling content and social conversations drives resurgence in linear TVGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tse E, Histon J, Scott SD, Greenberg S (2004) Avoiding interference: How people use spatial separation and partitioning in sdg workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW’04. ACM, New York, pp 252–261Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    “TV Licensing”. A look at the nation’s changing viewing habits from TV Licensing (2012)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vatavu R-D (2013) There’s a world outside your TV: exploring interactions beyond the physical TV screen. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on interactive TV and video, EuroITV’13. ACM, New York, pp 143–152Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vatavu R-D, Zaiti I-A (2014) Leap gestures for TV: insights from an elicitation study. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video, TVX’14. ACM, New York, pp 131–138Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Weigel M, Mehta V, Steimle J (2014) More than touch: Understanding how people use skin as an input surface for mobile computing. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’14. ACM, New York, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    You W, Fels S, Lea R (2008) Studying vision-based multiple-user interaction with in-home large displays. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM international workshop on human-centered computing, HCC’08, ACM, New York, pp 19–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark McGill
    • 1
  • John H. Williamson
    • 2
  • Stephen A. Brewster
    • 1
  1. 1.Glasgow Interactive Systems GroupUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK
  2. 2.Inference, Dynamics, and InteractionUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations