Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 869–903 | Cite as

CHM: an annotation- and component-based hypervideo model for the Web

  • Madjid Sadallah
  • Olivier Aubert
  • Yannick Prié


Hypervideos are hypermedia documents that focus on video content. While they have long been deployed using specialized software or even hardware, the Web now offers a ground for them to fit into standardized languages and implementations. However, hypervideo design also currently uses very specific models limited to a single class of documents, or very generic hypermedia models that may not appropriately express their specific features. In this article we describe such features, and we introduce CHM, an annotation-driven and component-based model to conceptualize hypervideos through a high level operational specification. An extensible set of high level components is defined to emphasize the presentation and interaction features modeling, while lower level components offer more flexibility and customization opportunities. Being annotation-based, the model promotes a clear separation between video content/metadata and their various potential presentations. We also describe WebCHM, an implementation of CHM with standard Web technologies that provides a general framework to experiment with hypervideos on the Web. Two examples are provided as well as a preliminary usage study of the model and its implementation to validate our claims and proposals.


Annotation Advene CHM Hypervideo Component Time and synchronization WebCHM 



This work has been partially funded by the French FUI (Fonds Unique Interministériel) CineCast project. It is supported by the Algerian Research Center on Scientific and Technical Information (CERIST).


  1. 1.
    Alisi T, Bertini M, D’Amico G, Del Bimbo A, Ferracani A, Pernici F, Serra G (2009) Arneb: a rich internet application for ground truth annotation of videos. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM, New York, pp 965–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    America ME (2000) Authoring with hyperlinked video. Technical report, Mitsubishi Electric AmericaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aubert O, Prié Y (2005) Advene: active reading through hypervideo. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia. ACM, New York, pp 235–244Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barišić A, Amaral V, Goulão M, Barroca B (2011) Quality in use of domain-specific languages: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN workshop on evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools. ACM, New York, pp 65–72Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bove M, Dakss J, Agamanolis S, Chalom E (2000) Hyperlinked television research at the MIT Media Laboratory. IBM Syst J 39:470–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bulterman D (2008) Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0). W3C recommendation, W3C. Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  7. 7.
    Bulterman DCA, Hardman L (2005) Structured multimedia authoring. ACM Trans Multimedia Comput Commun Appl 1:89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casanova MA, Tucherman L, Lima MJD, Rangel Netto JL, Rodriquez N, Soares LFG (1991) The nested context model for hyperdocuments. In: Proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM conference on hypertext. ACM, New York, pp 193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cazenave F, Quint V, Roisin C (2011) Timesheets.js: when SMIL meets HTML5 and CSS3. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM symposium on document engineering. ACM, New York, pp 43–52Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chambel, T., Chhaganlal MN, Neng LAR (2011) Towards immersive interactive video through 360° hypervideo. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology. ACM, New York, pp 78:1–78:2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chambel T, Guimaraes N (2002) Context perception in video-based hypermedia spaces. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on hypertext and hypermedia. College Park, Maryland, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chambel T, Zahn C, Finke M (2004) Hypervideo design and support for contextualized learning. In: IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT’04). Joensuu, Finland, pp 345–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daniels J, Fels S, Kushniruk A, Lim J, Ansermino J (2007) A framework for evaluating usability of clinical monitoring technology. J Clin Monit Comput 21:323–330. doi: 10.1007/s10877-007-9091-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis M, King S, Good N, Sarvas R (2004) From context to content: leveraging context to infer media metadata. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM, New York, pp 188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deltour R, Roisin C (2006) The LimSee3 multimedia authoring model. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on document engineering, pp 173–175Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fagá R, Motti VG, Cattelan RG, Teixeira CAC, da Graça Campos Pimentel M (2010) A social approach to authoring media annotations. In: 10th ACM symposium on document engineering, pp 17–26Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Finke M (2004) Mobile interactive video. Technical report, IST-2001-37365, MUMMY ProjectGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Geurts JPTM (2010) A document engineering model and processing framework for multimedia documents. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Girgensohn A, Wilcox L, Shipman F, Bly S (2004) Designing affordances for the navigation of detail-on-demand hypervideo. In: Proceedings of ACM advanced visual interfaces, pp 290–297Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halasz F, Schwartz M (1994) The Dexter hypertext reference model. Commun ACM 37(2): 30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hammoud RI (2006) Introduction to interactive video. In: Interactive video. Springer, New York, pp 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hardman L, Bulterman DCA, van Rossum G (1994) The Amsterdam hypermedia model: adding time and context to the Dexter model. Commun ACM 37:50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hickson I (2011) HTML5. Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  24. 24.
    Hoffmann P, Kochems T, Herczeg M (2008) HyLive: hypervideo-authoring for live television. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on changing television environments. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    InnoTeamS GmbH (2012) ADIVI—hypervideo für lernen und support. Website Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  26. 26.
    ISO (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs)—Part 11: guidance on usability. ISO StandardGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jansen J, Bulterman DC (2009) SMIL state: an architecture and implementation for adaptive time-based web applications. Multimed Tools Appl 43:203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jansen J, Cesar P, Bulterman DC (2010) A model for editing operations on active temporal multimedia documents. In: 10th ACM symposium on document engineering, pp 87–96Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kipp M (2001) ANVIL—a generic annotation tool for multimodal dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on speech communication and technology (Eurospeech). Aalborg, pp 1367–1370Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kokkoras F, Jiang H, Vlahavas I, Elmagarmid AK, Houstis EN, Aref WG (2002) Smart videotext: a video data model based on conceptual graphs. Multimedia Syst 8:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Laiola Guimarães R, Cesar P, Bulterman DC (2010) Creating and sharing personalized time-based annotations of videos on the web. In: 10th ACM symposium on document engineering, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li J, Ding Y, Shi Y, Zhang J (2010) Building a large annotation ontology for movie video retrieval. JDCTA 4(5):74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22(140):5–55Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lippman A (1980) Movie-maps: an application of the optical videodisc to computer graphics. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM, New York, pp 32–42Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meixner B, Siegel B, Hölbling G, Lehner F, Kosch H (2010) SIVA suite: authoring system and player for interactive non-linear videos. In: Proceedings of the international conference on multimedia. ACM, New York, pp 1563–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Memon QA, Khoja SA (2003) Object-database approach for a hypervideo platform. Malays J Comput Sci 16(2):73–80Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Miller G, Fels S, Al Hajri A, Ilich M, Foley-Fisher Z, Fernandez M, Jang D (2011) MediaDiver: viewing and annotating multi-view video. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1141–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morales M (2001) Hypervideo as a tool for communicating mathematics. Master’s thesis, European Master in Multimedia and Audiovisual Business Administration, Haute Ecole Groupe ICHEC ISC ST-Saint-Louis-ISFSCGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mozilla (2012) Popcorn.js The HTML5 media framework. Website Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  40. 40.
    Mozilla (2012) Web made movies. Retrieved from Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  41. 41.
    Mujacic S, Debevc M, Kosec P, Bloice M, Holzinger A (2012) Modeling, design, development and evaluation of a hypervideo presentation for digital systems teaching and learning. Multimed Tools Appl 58(2):435–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Navarrete T, Blat J (2002) VideoGIS: segmenting and indexing video based on geographic information. In: 5th AGILE conference on geographic information science, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nelson TH (1965) Complex information processing: a file structure for the complex, the changing and the indeterminate. In: Proceedings of the 1965 20th national conference. ACM, New York, pp 84–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nelson TH (1987) Computer Lib/dream machines. Microsoft Press, RedmondGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Olivier MS (2009) Information technology research—a practical guide for computer science and informatics, 2nd edn. Van Schaik, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pollone M, Rusconi M, Tua R (2002) From hyper-film to hyper-web: the challenging continuation of a European project. In: Electronic imaging and the visual arts conference. Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Roisin C (1998) Authoring structured multimedia documents. In: Proceedings of the 25th conference on current trends in theory and practice of informatics: theory and practice of informatics. Springer, London, pp 222–239Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sadallah M, Aubert O, Prié Y (2011) Component-based hypervideo model: high-level operational specification of hypervideos. In: ACM (ed) Document Engineering 2011 (DocEng 2011), pp 53–56Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sawhney NN, Balcom D, Smith IE (1996) HyperCafe: narrative and aesthetic properties of hypervideo. In: UK conference on hypertext. Bethesda, Maryland, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schmitz P, Patterson A, Newman D (2002) XHTML+SMIL profile. W3C note, W3C. Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  51. 51.
    Schmitz P, Yu J, Santangeli P (1998) Timed interactive multimedia extensions for HTML. W3C note, W3C. Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  52. 52.
    Shipman F, Girgensohn A, Wilcox L (2003) Combining spatial and navigational structure in the hyper-hitchcock hypervideo editor. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia, pp 124–125Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shipman F, Girgensohn A, Wilcox L (2003) Generation of interactive multi-level video summaries. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM, New York, pp 392–401Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Silva HVO, Rodrigues RF, Soares LFG, Muchaluat Saade DC (2004) NCL 2.0: integrating new concepts to XML modular languages. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on document engineering. ACM, New York, pp 188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Soares LFG, Rodrigues RF (2005) Nested context model 3.0 Part 1—NCM core. Technical report, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tiellet CA, Pereira AG, Reategui EB, Lima JV, Chambel T (2010) Design and evaluation of a hypervideo environment to support veterinary surgery learning. In: 21st ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia. ACM, pp 213–222Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vendrig J, Worring M (2003) Interactive adaptive movie annotation. IEEE Multimed 10:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58. (2012) Clickable video. Interactive video advertising. Website Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  59. 59.
    YouTube (2009) Getting started: creating or editing annotations. Website Accessed 30 Jan 2012
  60. 60.
    Zahn C, Barquero B, Schwan S (2004) Learning with hyperlinked videos—design criteria and efficient strategies for using audiovisual hypermedia. Learn Instr 14:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zoller P (2001) HMT: modeling interactive and adaptive hypermedia applications. In: Information modeling in the new millennium. Springer, New York, pp 383–405Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madjid Sadallah
    • 1
  • Olivier Aubert
    • 2
  • Yannick Prié
    • 2
  1. 1.DTISI - CERISTAlgerAlgérie
  2. 2.Université de Lyon, CNRS - Université Lyon 1, LIRIS, UMR5205Villeurbanne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations