Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 209–218 | Cite as

User interface evaluation of interactive TV: a media studies perspective

  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
  • Diomidis Spinellis


A diverse user population employs interactive TV (ITV) applications in a leisure context for entertainment purposes. The traditional user interface (UI) evaluation paradigm involving efficiency and task completion may not be adequate for the assessment of such applications. In this paper, we argue that unless ITV applications are evaluated with consideration for the ordinary TV viewer, they are going to be appropriate only for the computer literate user, thus excluding the TV audience from easy access to information society services. The field of media studies has accumulated an extensive theory of TV and associated methods. We applied the corresponding findings in the domain of ITV to examine how universal access to ITV applications can be obtained. By combining these results with emerging affective quality theories for interactive products, we propose a UI evaluation framework for ITV applications.


Interactive television User interface Affective quality Media studies Evaluation Methodology 



We are grateful to Jens Riegelsberger and Mina Vasalou for their suggestions on early drafts of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Berglund A, Johansson P (2004) Using speech and dialogue for interactive TV navigation. Universal Access Inf Soc 3(3–4):224–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley M, Lang P (1994) Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 25(1):49–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chorianopoulos K, Spinellis D (2004) Affective usability evaluation for an interactive music television channel. Comput Entertain 2(3):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Csikszentmihalyi M (1991) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Desmet PM (2003) Measuring emotions: development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In: Blythe M, Monk A, Overbeeke K, Wright P (eds) Funology: from usability to enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Draper SW (1999) Analysing fun as a candidate software requirement. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 3(3):117–122Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drucker SM, Glatzer A, Mar SD, Wong C (2002) Smartskip: consumer level browsing and skipping of digital video content. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 219–226Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eronen L (2001) Combining quantitative and qualitative data in user research on digital television. In: Proceedings of PC HCI 2001, Typorama, AthensGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eronen L, Vuorimaa P (2000) User interfaces for digital television: a navigator case study. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, pp. 276–279Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fogg B (2002) Persuasive technologies: using computer power to change attitudes and behaviors. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freeman J, Lessiter J (2003) Using attitude based segmentation to better understand viewers’ usability issues with digital and interactive TV. In: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on interactive television: from viewers to actors? pp. 19–27Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frokjer E, Hertzu M, Hornb K (2000) Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 345–352Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gill J, Perera S (2003) Accessible universal design of interactive digital television. In: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on interactive television: from viewers to actors? pp. 83–89Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goleman D (1995) Emotional intelligence. Bantam, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassenzahl M (2005) The quality of interactive products: hedonic needs, emotions and experience. In: Ghaoui C (ed) Encyclopedia of human–computer interaction. Idea Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassenzahl M, Beu A, Burmester M (2001) Engineering joy. IEEE Softw 18(1):70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassenzahl M, Platz A, Burmester M, Lehner K (2000) Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 201–208Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holbroock MB, Hirschman EC (1982) The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J Consum Res 9:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knobloch S, Zillmann D (2002) Mood management via the digital jukebox. J Commun 52(2):351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kubey R, Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Television and the quality of life: how viewing shapes everyday experiences. Lawrence Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lavie T, Tractinsky N (2004) Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int J Hum Comput Stud 60(3):269–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee B, Lee RS (1995) How and why people watch TV: implications for the future of interactive television. J Advert Res 35(6):9–18Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Livaditi J, Vassilopoulou K, Lougos C, Chorianopoulos K (2003) Needs and gratifications for interactive TV applications: implications for designers. In: Proceedings of the HICSS 2003 conference, p. 100bGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Macdonald N (2004) Can HCI shape the future of mass communications? Interactions 11(2):44–47CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maguire M (2002) Applying evaluation methods to future digital TV services. In: Green W, Jordan P (eds) Pleasure with products beyond usability. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 353–366Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malone TW (1982) Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: lessons from computer games. In: Proceedings of the 1982 conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 63–68Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Monk A (2000) User-centred design: the home use challenge. In: Sloane A, van Rijn F (eds) Home informatics and telematics: information technology and society. Kluwer, Boston, pp. 181–190Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moore GA (1991) Crossing the chasm. HarperColins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Murry JP, Lastovicka JL, Singh SN (1992) Feeling and liking responses to television programs: an examination of two explanations for media-context effects. J Consum Res 18(3):441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielsen J, Levy J (1994) Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Commun ACM 37(4):66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Brien J, Rodden T, Rouncefield M, Hughes J (1999) At home with the technology: an ethnographic study of a set-top-box trial. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 6(3):282–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Park CW, Young SM (1986) Consumer responses to television commercials: the impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. J Mark Res 23(2):11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perse EM (1990) Media involvement and local news effects. J Broadcast Electron Media 34(1):17–36Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petersen MG, Madsen KH, Kjaer A (2002) The usability of everyday technology: emerging and fading opportunities. ACM Transact Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 9(2):74–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reeves B, Naas C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press/CLSI, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rubin A (1983) Television uses and gratifications: the interaction of viewing patterns and motivations. J Broadcast 27(1):37–51Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Russell JA, Mehrabian A (1977) Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. J Res Pers 11(3):273–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stephanidis C, Akoumianakis D (2001) Universal design: towards universal access in the information society. In: CHI ‘01: CHI ‘01 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp. 499–500Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thayer RE (1986) Activation-deactivation adjective check list (AD ACL): current overview and structural analysis. Psychol Rep 58:607–614Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Theodoropoulou V (2002) The rise or the fall of interactivity? Digital television and the “first generation” of the digital audience in the UK. In: Proceedings of the RIPE@2002 conference—broadcasting and convergence: articulating a new remit, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tractinsky N (1997) Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In: CHI ‘97: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 115–122Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tractinsky N, Katz A, Ikar D (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interact Comput 13:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vorderer P (2000) Interactive entertainment and beyond. In: Zillmann D, Vorderer P (eds) Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 21–36Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vorderer P (2001) It’s all entertainment—sure. But what exactly is entertainment? Communication research, media psychology, and the explanation of entertainment experiences. Poetics 29:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vorderer P, Knobloch S, Schramm H (2001) Does entertainment suffer from interactivity? The impact of watching an interactive TV movie on viewers’ experience of entertainment. Media Psychol 3(4):343–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wittenburg K, Forlines C, Lanning T, Esenther A, Harada S, Miyachi T (2003) Rapid serial visual presentation techniques for consumer digital video devices. In: UIST ‘03: proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, pp. 115–124Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zaichkowsky JL (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res 12:341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang P, Li N (2005) The importance of affective quality. Commun ACM 48(9):105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zillmann D (2000) The coming of media entertainment. In: Zillmann D, Vorderer P (eds) Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zillmann D, Bryant J (1985) Selective exposure to communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
    • 1
  • Diomidis Spinellis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Management Science and Technology, Patision 76Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations