Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 20, pp 26741–26768 | Cite as

A TOPSIS-based QoE model for adapted content selection of slide documents

  • Habib LouafiEmail author
  • Stéphane Coulombe
  • Mohamed Cheriet


In certain platforms, such as Google Docs, documents are adapted for specific mobile device types, and the installation of their applications is required. Although the documents can be accessed via Web browsers, their correctness is not guaranteed. In content selection, the document is adapted into various versions, from which the optimal one, based on a quality of experience (QoE) criterion, is delivered. Existing works evaluate the QoE of each content version using the user’s preferences and context parameters, such as device resolution and network bitrate. They ask the user to weight the context parameters, and then combine them using the simple-additive-weighting (SAW) method. However, not all users are familiar with the context parameters, and cannot understand their relationship with the requested content. Besides, not all parameters are compensatory to be summed up. In this paper, we propose a TOPSIS-based QoE model to address the two aforementioned drawbacks. We use the context parameters to define high-level functions understandable by all users, and combine them using the TOPSIS method. Experimental results show the convenience of our QoE model and its reliability over the SAW-based method, as well as the weighting-product (WP) method, which is used as an alternative to the SAW one.


Mobile computing QoE QoS User preferences Context awareness Content adaptation SAW WP TOPSIS 


  1. 1.
    Abdullah RM, Zukarnain ZA (1626) Enhanced handover decision algorithm in heterogeneous wireless network. Sensors 17:2017Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adobe Systems Incorporated. Adobe Connect 8: Web Conferencing for the Enterprise., 1015. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  3. 3.
    Association of professional wireless production technology. Realistic LTE Performance - From Peak Rate to Subscriber Experience., 2009. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  4. 4.
    Bordignon A, Varella F, Toss J, Barbosa MLK, Roesler V (2009) Mechanisms for interoperable content production among Web, Digital TV and Mobiles. Inf Educ: Teoria Prát 12(1):110–118Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coulombe S, Pigeon S (2009) Quality-aware selection of quality factor and scaling parameters in JPEG image transcoding. In: 2009 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence for multimedia signal and vision processing, pp 68–74Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coulombe S, Pigeon S (2010) Low-complexity transcoding of JPEG images with near-optimal quality using a predictive quality factor and scaling parameters. IEEE Trans Image Process 19(3):712–721MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coulombe S, Grassel G (July 2004) Multimedia adaptation for the multimedia messaging service. IEEE Commun Mag 42(7):120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dieckmann A, Dippold K, Dietrich H (2009) Compensatory versus noncompensatory models for predicting consumer preferences. Judgment Decis Making 4(3):200–213Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Google Inc. Convert a synced file to Google Docs format., 2015. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  10. 10.
    Google Inc. GoogleDocs., 2015. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  11. 11.
    Google Inc. Minimum requirements for Google Docs on a mobile browser., 2015. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  12. 12.
    Goto K, Koshijima R, Toyama M (2014) Generating desktop and mobile web pages from a single SuperSQL query. In: Proceedings of the 19th international database engineering & applications symposium, IDEAS ’15. ACM, NY, pp 222–223Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han R, Bhagwat P, LaMaire R, Mummert T, Perret V, Rubas J (1998) Dynamic adaptation in an image transcoding proxy for mobile web browsing. IEEE Pers Commun 5(6):8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsiao J-L, Hung H-P, Chen M-S (2008) Versatile transcoding proxy for internet content adaptation. IEEE Trans Multimed 10(4):646–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    He J, Tong G, Wei H, I-Ling Y, Bastani F (2007) A flexible content adaptation system using a rule-based approach. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 19(1):127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaliszewski I, Podkopaev D (2016) Simple additive weighting a metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Expert Syst Appl 54:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koehl A, Wang. H (2012) m.Site: efficient content adaptation for mobile devices. In: Middleware 2012, volume 7662 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 41–60Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuipers F, Kooij R, De Vleeschauwer D, Brunnström K (2010) Techniques for measuring quality of experience. In: Wired/wireless internet communications, volume 6074 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 216–227Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee L, Anderson R (2009) A comparison of compensatory and non-compensatory decision making strategies in IT project portfolio management., 2009. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  21. 21.
    Louafi H, Coulombe S, Chandra U (2013) Quality prediction-based dynamic content adaptation framework applied to collaborative mobile presentations. IEEE Trans Mob Comput 12(10):2024–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Louafi H, Coulombe S, Chandra U (2015) Robust QoE-aware prediction-based dynamic content adaptation framework applied to slides documents in mobile web conferencing. Springer Multimed Tools Appl 74(18):7883–7920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lum WY, Lau FCM (2002) On balancing between transcoding overhead and spatial consumption in content adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking MobiCom 02, p 239Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lum WY, Lau FCM (2003) User-centric content negotiation for effective adaptation service in mobile computing. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(12):1100–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lum WY, Lau FCM (2005) User-centric adaptation of structured web documents for small devices. In: 19th international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA’05), vol 1. IEEE, pp 507–512Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26(6):369–395MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitra K, Zaslavsky A, Ahlund C (2015) Context-aware QoE modelling, measurement, and prediction in mobile computing systems. IEEE Trans Mob Comput 14(5):920–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nah FF (2004) A study on tolerable waiting time: how long are web users willing to wait?. Behav Inf Technol 23(3):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Open Mobile Alliance. User agent profile - approved Version 2.0., 2006. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  30. 30.
    Pipyros K, Thraskias C, Mitrou L, Gritzalis D, Apostolopoulos T (2017) A new strategy for improving cyber-attacks evaluation in the context of tallinn manual. Elsevier Computers & SecurityGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Richards A, Antoniades M, Witana V, Rogers G (1998) Mapping user level QoS from a single parameter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on multimedia networks and servicesGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Savitha K, Chandrasekar C (2011) Vertical handover decision schemes using saw and wpm for network selection in heterogeneous wireless networks. Glob J Comput Sci Technol 11(9):19–24Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Senouci MA, Hoceini S, Mellouk A (2016) Utility function-based TOPSIS for network interface selection in heterogeneous wireless networks. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheikh HR, Wang Z, Cormack L, Bovik AC (2006) LIVE Image Quality Assessment Database Release 2., 2006. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  35. 35.
    Su J-M, Tseng S-S, Lin H-Y, Chen C-H (2011) A personalized learning content adaptation mechanism to meet diverse user needs in mobile learning environments. Model User-Adap Inter 21(1-2):5–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sui K, Zhou M, Liu D, Ma M, Pei D, Zhao Y, Li Z, Moscibroda T (2016) Characterizing and improving wifi latency in large-scale operational networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services. ACMGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Svoboda P, Ricciato F, Keim W, Rupp M (2007) Measured WEB performance in GPRS, EDGE, UMTS and HSDPA with and without caching. In: IEEE international symposium on a world of wireless, mobile and multimedia networks (WoWMoM), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13 (4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    W3C. Hypertext Transfer Protocol., 1999. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  40. 40.
    Yoon K, Hwang C-L (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: Paul an introduction. SAGE Publications, Thousands OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang Y, Zhang S, Han S (2006) A new methodology of QoS evaluation and service selection for ubiquitous computing. In: Wireless algorithms, systems, and applications, volume 4138 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang Y, Zhang S, Han S (2006) Context-aware service selection engine for ubiquitous computing application. In: 6th world congress on intelligent control and automation. IEEE, pp 4269–4273Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang Y, Zhang S, Han S (2006) Context-based Qos model and its application in ubiquitous computing. In: International conference on machine learning and cybernetics. IEEE, pp 1517–1521Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang Y, Zhang S, Tong H (2006) Adaptive service delivery for mobile users in ubiquitous computing environments. In: Ma J, Jin H, Yang L, Tsai J (eds) Ubiquitous intelligence and computing, volume 4159 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zoho. Zoho Mobile., 2010. Accessed on 17 December 2017
  46. 46.
    Zoho Corp. Zoho Show., 2015. Accessed on 17 December 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Synchromedia Laboratory for Multimedia Communication in Telepresence, École de technologie supérieureUniversité du QuébecMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Software and IT Engineering, École de technologie supérieureUniversité du QuébecMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations