Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 21, pp 28023–28048 | Cite as

GeoHbbTV: A framework for the development and evaluation of geographic interactive TV contents

  • David Luaces
  • José R. R. Viqueira
  • Pablo Gamallo
  • David Mera
  • Julián C. Flores
Article
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Synchronizing TV contents with applications is a topic that has gained much interest during the last years. Reaching the viewers through various channels (TV, web, mobile devices, etc.) has shown to be a means for increasing the audience. Related to the above, the hybrid TV standard HbbTV (Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV) synchronizes the broadcast of video and audio with applications that may be delivered through either the broadcast channel or a broadband network. Thus, HbbTV applications may be developed to provide contextual information for emitted TV shows and advertisements. This paper reports on the integration of the automatic generation of geographic focus of text content with interactive TV. In particular it describes a framework for the incorporation of geographic context to TV shows and its visualization through HbbTV. To achieve this, geographic named entities are first extracted from the available subtitles and next the spatial extension of those entities is used for the production of context maps. An evaluation strategy has been devised and used to test alternative prototype implementations for TV newscast in Spanish language. Finally, to go beyond the initial solution proposed, some challenges for future research are also discussed.

Keywords

Interactive TV HbbTV Geographic visualization Geographic annotation Geographic tagging 

References

  1. 1.
    Abreu J, Almeida P, Silva T, Oliveira R (2015) Discovering tv contents in a second screen app: Perspectives from portuguese and brazilian markets. Proced Comput Sci 64:1240–1247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.508. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915026435. Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems/International Conference on Project MANagement/Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies, CENTERIS/ProjMAN / HCist 2015 October 7-9, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abreu JF, Almeida P, Silva T (2015) Enriching second-screen experiences with automatic content recognition. In: VI Interactive digital TV congress–IV iberoamerican conference on applications and usability of interactive TV, Mallorca, SpainGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adelfio MD, Samet H (2013) Geowhiz: Toponym resolution using common categories. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, SIGSPATIAL’13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2525314.2525321. ACM, New York, pp 532–535
  4. 4.
    Aguilar M, Pamplona P, Fernández S (2016) Tv-ring and immersiatv: Present and future of television. In: Abásolo MJ, Perales FJ, Bibiloni A (eds) Applications and Usability of Interactive TV. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 9–14Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amitay E, Har’El N, Sivan R, Soffer A (2004) Web-a-where: Geotagging web content. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’04.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1008992.1009040. ACM, New York, pp 273–280
  6. 6.
    Angel A, Lontou C, Pfoser D, Efentakis A (2008) Qualitative geocoding of persistent web pages. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, GIS ’08.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1463434.1463460. ACM, New York, pp 20:1–20:10
  7. 7.
    Anstead E, Benford S, Houghton RJ (2014) Many-screen viewing: Evaluating an olympics companion application. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, TVX ’14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2602299.2602304. ACM, New York, pp 103–110
  8. 8.
    Athanasiadis E, Mitropoulos S (2010) A distributed platform for personalized advertising in digital interactive tv environments. J Syst Softw 83 (8):1453–1469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.040. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121210000683. Performance Evaluation and Optimization of Ubiquitous Computing and Networked SystemsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bao J, Mokbel MF (2013) Georank: an efficient location-aware news feed ranking system. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, SIGSPATIAL’13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2525314.2525336. ACM, New York, pp 184–193
  10. 10.
    Van den Broeck W, Pamplona P, Fernandez Langa S (2017) Developing a multi-device immersive tv-experience: User expectations and practices. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd International Workshop on Multimedia Alternate Realities, AltMM ’17.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3132361.3132362. ACM, New York, pp 25–30
  11. 11.
    Buscaldi D (2011) Approaches to disambiguating toponyms. SIGSPATIAL Spec 3(2):16–19.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2047296.2047300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carreras X, Marquez L, Padró L, Padró M (2002) Named entity extraction using adaboost. In: COLING-02 proceedings of the 6th Conference on Natural Language LearningGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cesar P, Bulterman DC, Geerts D, Jansen J, Knoche H, Seager W (2008) Enhancing social sharing of videos: Fragment, annotate, enrich, and share. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’08.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1459359.1459362. ACM, New York, pp 11–20
  14. 14.
    Cesar P, Geerts D (2011) Past, present, and future of social tv: a categorization. In: 2011 IEEE Consumer communications and networking conference (CCNC), pp 347–351.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CCNC.2011.5766487
  15. 15.
    Chorianopoulos K (2008) Personalized and mobile digital tv applications. Multimed Tools Appl 36(1):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0081-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coelho J, Rito F, Duarte C (2017) ”you, me & tv” — fighting social isolation of older adults with facebook, tv and multimodality. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 98:38–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.015. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581916301276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Compton R, Keegan MS, Xu J (2014) Inferring the geographic focus of online documents from social media sharing patterns. CoRR arXiv:1406.2392
  18. 18.
    Costa D, Carriço L, Duarte C (2015) The differences in accessibility of tv and desktop web applications from the perspective of automated evaluation. Proced Comput Sci 67:388–396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.283. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915031294. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cunningham H, Maynard D, Bontcheva K, Tablan V, Aswani N, Roberts I, Gorrell G, Funk A, Roberts A, Damljanovic D, Heitz T, Greenwood MA, Saggion H, Petrak J, Li Y, Petersa W, Derczynski L (2014) Developing language processing components with GATE version 8. University of Sheffield Department of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D’Ignazio C, Bhargava R, Zuckerman E, Beck L (2014) Cliff-clavin: Determining geographic focus for news articles. In: NewsKDD workshop, 201h ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data miningGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ding J, Gravano L, Shivakumar N (2000) Computing geographical scopes of web resources. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB ’00. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=645926.672013. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 545–556
  22. 22.
    Dowell J, Malacria S, Kim H, Anstead E (2015) Companion apps for information-rich television programmes: representation and interaction. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19(7):1215–1228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0867-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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):136–154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310701821426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Epelde G, Valencia X, Carrasco E, Posada J, Abascal J, Diaz-Orueta U, Zinnikus I, Husodo-Schulz C (2013) Providing universally accessible interactive services through tv sets: implementation and validation with elderly users. Multimed Tools Appl 67(2):497–528.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-011-0949-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Finkel JR, Grenager T, Manning C (2005) Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL ’05.  https://doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219885. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 363–370
  26. 26.
    Gamallo P, Garcia M (2011) A resource-based method for named entity extraction and classification. LNCS 7026:610–623Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garcia M, Gamallo P (2015) Yet Another Suite of Multilingual NLP Tools. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 65–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27653-3_7 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gelernter J, Balaji S (2013) An algorithm for local geoparsing of microtext. Geoinformatica 17(4):635–667.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-012-0173-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldberg DW, Wilson JP, Knoblock CA (2009) Extracting geographic features from the internet to automatically build detailed regional gazetteers. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23(1):93–128.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810802577262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goodchild MF, Hill LL (2008) Introduction to digital gazetteer research. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22(10):1039–1044.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701850497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guna J, Stojmenova E, Kos A, Pogaċnik M (2017) The tv-web project - combining internet and television–lessons learnt from the user experience studies. Multimed Tools Appl 76(20):20,377–20,408.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3243-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guna J, Stojmenova-Duh E, Pogaċnik M (2017) Users’ viewpoint of usability and user experience testing procedure - gaining methodological insights in a case of an interactive hbbtv application. Multimed Tools Appl 76(15):16,125–16,143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3898-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jiang R, Banchs RE, Li H (2016) Evaluating and combining name entity recognition systems. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Named Entity Workshop, NEWS@ACL 2016. Berlin, pp 21–27.  https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-2703
  34. 34.
    Jones CB, Purves RS (2008) Geographical information retrieval. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22(3):219–228.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701626343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim S, Wilbur WJ (2012) Thematic clustering of text documents using an em-based approach. J Biomed Semant 3(3):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-3-S3-S6 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim J, Ahn SJG, Kwon ES, Reid LN (2017) Tv advertising engagement as a state of immersion and presence. J Bus Res 76:67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296317300887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kiryakov A, Popov B, Terziev I, Manov D, Ognyanoff D (2004) Semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval. Web Semant 2(1):49–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2004.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krämer NC, Winter S, Benninghoff B, Gallus C (2015) How ”social” is social tv? the influence of social motives and expected outcomes on the usage of social tv applications. Comput Hum Behav 51:255–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215003672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lamprier S, Amghar T, Levrat B, Saubion F (2008) Using an evolving thematic clustering in a text segmentation process. J Univers Comput Sci 14(2):178–192Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li Z, Wang M, Liu J, Xu C, Lu H (2011) News contextualization with geographic and visual information. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM’11.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2072298.2072317. ACM, New York, pp 133–142
  41. 41.
    Li C, Weng J, He Q, Yao Y, Datta A, Sun A, Lee BS (2012) Twiner: Named entity recognition in targeted twitter stream. In: Proceedings of the 35th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2348283.2348380. ACM, New York, pp 721–730
  42. 42.
    Lieberman MD, Samet H, Sankaranarayanan J, Sperling J (2007) Steward: Architecture of a spatio-textual search engine. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, GIS ’07.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1341012.1341045. ACM, New York, pp 25:1–25:8
  43. 43.
    Lieberman MD, Samet H (2011) Multifaceted toponym recognition for streaming news. In: Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’11.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2009916.2010029. ACM, New York, pp 843–852
  44. 44.
    Luo J, Joshi D, Yu J, Gallagher A (2011) Geotagging in multimedia and computer vision—a survey. Multimed Tools Appl 51(1):187–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0623-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Murray J, Goldenberg S, Agarwal K, Chakravorty T, Cutrell J, Doris-Down A, Kothandaraman H (2012) Story-map: Ipad companion for long form tv narratives. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video, EuroITV ’12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2325616.2325659. ACM, New York, pp 223–226
  46. 46.
    Nandakumar A, Murray J (2014) Companion apps for long arc tv series: Supporting new viewers in complex storyworlds with tightly synchronized context-sensitive annotations. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, TVX ’14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2602299.2602317. ACM, New York, pp 3–10
  47. 47.
    Nitta N, Babaguchi N, Kitahashi T (2005) Generating semantic descriptions of broadcasted sports videos based on structures of sports games and tv programs. Multimed Tools Appl 25(1):59–83.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MTAP.0000046382.62218.e1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Padró L, Stanilovsky E (2012) Freeling 3.0: Towards wider multilinguality. In: Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pasley RC, Clough P, Sanderson M (2007) Geo-tagging for imprecise regions of different sizes. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Geographical Information Retrieval, GIR ’07.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1316948.1316969. ACM, New York, pp 77–82
  50. 50.
    Purves RS, Clough P, Jones CB, Arampatzis A, Bucher B, Finch D, Fu G, Joho H, Syed AK, Vaid S, Yang B (2007) The design and implementation of spirit: a spatially aware search engine for information retrieval on the internet. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 21(7):717–745.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810601169840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ritter A, Clark S, Mausam Etzioni O (2011) Named entity recognition in tweets: An experimental study. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP ’11. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 1524–1534Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Samet H, Sankaranarayanan J, Lieberman MD, Adelfio MD, Fruin BC, Lotkowski JM, Panozzo D, Sperling J, Teitler BE (2014) Reading news with maps by exploiting spatial synonyms. Commun ACM 57(10):64–77.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2629572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sankaranarayanan J, Samet H, Teitler BE, Lieberman MD, Sperling J (2009) Twitterstand: News in tweets. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, GIS ’09.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1653771.1653781. ACM, New York, pp 42–51
  54. 54.
    Schaap G, Kleemans M, Cauwenberge AV (2018) Second screening for news: Effects of presentation on information processing and program liking. Comput Hum Behav 84:76–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.006. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563218300645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Silva P, Amer Y, Tsikerdanos W, Shedd J, Restrepo I, Murray J (2015) A game of thrones companion: Orienting viewers to complex storyworlds via synchronized visualizations. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, TVX ’15.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2745197.2755519. ACM, New York, pp 167–172
  56. 56.
    Strzebkowski R, Bartoli R, Spielvogel S, Schmidt D (2014) Hbbtv-based augmented information television with segment-linked related content on tv and 2nd screen. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Interactive Content Consumption at the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video (TVX2014). https://wsicc.net/2014/
  57. 57.
    Teitler BE, Lieberman MD, Panozzo D, Sankaranarayanan J, Samet H, Sperling J (2008) Newsstand: a new view on news. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, GIS ’08.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1463434.1463458. ACM, New York, pp 18:1–18:10
  58. 58.
    Tjong Kim Sang EF (2002) Introduction to the conll-2002 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning - Volume 20, COLING-02.  https://doi.org/10.3115/1118853.1118877. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 1–4
  59. 59.
    Tsekleves E, Whitham R, Kondo K, Hill A (2011) Investigating media use and the television user experience in the home. Entertain Comput 2 (3):151–161.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2011.02.002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875952111000061. User experiences in the new TV landscapeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vanattenhoven J, Geerts D (2017) Social experiences within the home using second screen tv applications. Multimed Tools Appl 76(4):5661–5689.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3646-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vasardani M, Winter S, Richter KF (2013) Locating place names from place descriptions. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 27(12):2509–2532.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.785550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vidal JC, Lama M, Otero-García E, Bugarín A (2014) Graph-based semantic annotation for enriching educational content with linked data. Knowl-Based Syst 55:29–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.10.007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705113003183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wang C, Xie X, Wang L, Lu Y, Ma WY (2005) Web resource geographic location classification and detection. In: Special interest tracks and posters of the 14th international conference on world wide web, WWW ’05.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1062745.1062907. ACM, New York, pp 1138–1139

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro Singular de Investigación en Tecnoloxías da Información (CiTIUS)Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC)Santiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations