Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 5171–5189 | Cite as

Interactive multimedia content for older adults: the case of SeniorChannel

  • Valeria Orso
  • Anna Spagnolli
  • Luciano Gamberini
  • Francisco Ibañez
  • Maria Elena Fabregat
Article

Abstract

Interactive multimodal content fruition is increasingly available on platforms accessible via smart televisions (TVs), personal computers (PCs), or tablets. Based on the case of SeniorChannel TV, this paper contributes to understanding whether this format can meet the needs of older users. The paper first describes SeniorChannel TV and the usability guidelines according to which it was designed. It then reports two user studies, one of which was carried out in the field with seven test households and focused on usability. The second study was carried out in experience labs in Italy and Spain with 20 participants and assessed users’ satisfaction and an active audience’s experience with the final prototype. The paper offers encouraging results on the potential of interactive multimodal content to support an active audience experience, and it describes the double-level at which accessibility can be ensured.

Keywords

Interactive TV Older adults Active audience Usability 

References

  1. 1.
    Bondad-Brown BA, Rice RE, Pearce KE (2012) Influences on TV viewing and online user-shared video use: demographics, generations, contextual age, media use, motivations, and audience activity. J Broadcast Electron Media 56(4):471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brooke J (1996) SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 189(194):4–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capece G, Costa R (2013) The new neighborhood in the Internet era: network communities serving local communities. Behav Inform Technol 32(5):438–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carmichael A (1999) Style guide for the design of interactive television services for elderly viewers. Independent Television Commission, WinchesterGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carpentier N (2011) The concept of participation: if they have access and interact, do they really participate? CM-časopis za upravljanje komuniciranjem 6(21):13–36Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cattan M, White M, Bond J, Learmouth A (2005) Preventing social isolation and loneliness among older people: a systematic review of health promotion interventions. Ageing Soc 25(1):41–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Commission of the European Communities (n.d.) Barriers to widespread access to new services and applications of the information society through open platforms in digital television and third generation mobile communications Retrieved June 12, 2015, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52003DC0410&from=EN
  8. 8.
    Dickinson A, Arnott J, Prior S (2007) Methods for human–computer interaction research with older people. Behav Inform Technol 26(4):343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dodero G, Gennari R, Melonio A, Torello S (2015) “There is no rose without a thorn”: an assessment of a game design experience for children. In: Proceedings of the 11th biannual conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter (CHItaly 2015) (pp.10–17). New York: ACMGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Druin A (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav Inf Technol 21(1):1–25Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Findlay RA (2003) Interventions to reduce social isolation amongst older people: where is the evidence? Ageing Soc 23(05):647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisk AD, Rogers WA, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit J (2009) Designing for older adults: principles and creative human factors approaches. CRC pressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forsman AK, Herberts C, Nyqvist F, Wahlbeck K, Schierenbeck I (2013) Understanding the role of social capital for mental wellbeing among older adults. Ageing Soc 33(05):804–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    García-Avilés JA (2012) Roles of audience participation in multiplatform television: from fans and consumers, to collaborators and activists. Participations. J Audience Reception Stud 9(2):429–447Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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. 83–89)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordon-Salant S, Frisina RD, Fay RR, Popper A (2009) The aging auditory system (Vol. 34). Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hess J, Knoche H, Wulf V (2014) Thinking beyond the box: designing interactive TV across different devices. Behav Inf Technol 33(8)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holmes S (2004) ‘But this time you choose!’Approaching the ‘Interactive’audience in reality TV. Int J Cult Stud 7(2):213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen JF (2005) Interactive television: new genres, new format, new content. In: Proceedings of the second Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment (IE ’05). Creativity & Cognition Studios Press, Sydney, Australia, Australia, 89–96Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jung Y, Song H, Vorderer P (2012) Why do people post and read personal messages in public? The motivation of using personal blogs and its effects on users’ loneliness, belonging, and well-being. Comput Hum Behav 28(5):1626–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee M, Roskos B, Ewoldsen DR (2013) The impact of subtitles on comprehension of narrative film. Media Psycholo 16(4):412–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewis JR (1995) IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum‐Comput Interact 7(1):57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Livingstone S (2003) The changing nature of audiences. A companion to media studies. In: Valdivia A (ed) Companion to media study. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 337–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lund AM (2001) Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface 8(2):3–6Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Newell AF, Gregor P, Morgan M, Pullin G, Macaulay C (2011) User-sensitive inclusive design. Univ Access Inf Soc 10(3):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nunes F, Kerwin M, Silva P A (2012) Design recommendations for tv user interfaces for older adults: findings from the eCAALYX project. In: Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (pp. 41–48). New York: ACMGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orso V, Spagnolli A, Gamberini L, Ibañez F, Fabregat ME (2015) Involving older adults in designing interactive technology: the case of SeniorCHANNEL. In: Proceedings of the 11th biannual conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter (pp. 102–109). ACMGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pak R, McLaughlin A (2010) Designing displays for older adults. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Piccolo LSG, Melo AM, Baranauskas MCC (2007) Accessibility and interactive TV: design recommendations for the brazilian scenario. In: Human-computer interaction–INTERACT 2007 (pp. 361–374). Springer Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spagnolli A, Gamberini L, Ibanez F, Fabregat ME, Debelic T, Orso V (2012) Involving elderly users in design: techniques to collect preferences for interactive digital television. Ann Rev Cyberther Telemed 2012: Adv Technol Behav Soc Neurosci 181:233Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sperring S, Strandvall T (2008) Viewers’ experiences of a TV quiz show with integrated interactivity. Intl J Hum–Comput Interact 24(2):214–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Digital Accessibility Team (DAT) of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB). Retrieved September 27, 2010, from http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/guidelines_list.htm#technologyareas
  33. 33.
    Zaphiris P, Ghiawadwala M, Mughal S (2005) Age-centered research-based web design guidelines. In: CHI’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1897–1900). ACMGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria Orso
    • 1
  • Anna Spagnolli
    • 1
  • Luciano Gamberini
    • 1
  • Francisco Ibañez
    • 2
  • Maria Elena Fabregat
    • 3
  1. 1.HTLab, Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PaduaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.BrainstormValenciaSpain
  3. 3.University of AlicanteAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations