A Metaphor for Personalized Television Programming

  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
  • Diomidis Spinellis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2615)


Traditional human-computer interaction settings involve a taskoriented approach where the human interacts with an application to accomplish a particular goal. The emergence of media-rich computer-mediated leisure applications requires a fresh view of the current paradigms and a careful examination of how this change of perspective affects their relevance. This paper proposes a metaphor for accessing personalized television programming and suggests an approach for integrating the metaphor into the design of a television user interface. The proposed metaphor is tested in the design of a personalized advertising service. The results of the empirical research are discussed and the suitability of the metaphor for other television programs is examined.


Digital Television Television News Personalized Television Broadcast Transmission Television User Interface 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, C. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballay, J. M. Designing workscape: an interdisciplinary experience. In Conference proceedings on Human factors in computing systems: “Celebrating interdependence”, pages 10–15. ACM Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell, G. and J. Gemmell. A Call for the Home Media Network. Communications of the ACM, 45(7):71–75, July 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruhl, D. and W. Bender. A new structure for news editing. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3/4):569–588, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenkins, H. Tv tomorrow. MIT Technology Review, May 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, J., T. L. Roberts, W. Verplank, D. C. Smith, C. H. Irby, M. Beard, and K. Mackey. The Xerox Star: a retrospective. Computer, 22(9):11–26, 28–29, Sept. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kapyla, T., I. Niemi, and A. Lehtola. Towards an accessible web by applying PUSH technology. In Proceedings of the 4th ERCIM Workshop on ‘User Interfaces for All’, number 15 in Position Papers: Information Filtering and Presentation, page 15. ERCIM, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karvonen, K. Experimenting with metaphors for all: A user interface for a mobile electronic payment device. In Proceedings of the 6th ERCIM Workshop on ‘User Interfaces for Allrs, number 16 in Short Papers, page 6. ERCIM, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kraut, R., T. Mukhopadhyay, J. Szczypula, S. Kiesler, and W. Scherlis. Communication and information alternative uses of the Internet in households. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI-98): Making the Impossible Possible, pages 368–375, New York, Apr. 18–23 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lekakos, G., K. Chorianopoulos, and D. Spinellis. Information systems in the living room: A case study of personalized interactive TV design. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, June 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lekakos, G. and G. Giaglis. Delivering personalized advertisements in digital television: A methodology and empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the AH’2002 Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, may 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merialdo, B., K. T. Lee, D. Luparello, and J. Roudaire. Automatic construction of personalized tv news programs. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM international conference on Multimedia (Part 1), pages 323–331. ACM Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milenkovic, M. Delivering interactive services via a digital TV infrastructure. IEEE MultiMedia, 5(4):34–43, Oct.–Dec. 1998.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Negroponte, N. Being digital. London: Hodder Stoughton, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Brien, J., T. Rodden, M. Rouncefield, and J. Hughes. At home with the technology: an ethnographic study of a set-top-box trial. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 6(3):282–308, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, D. C. S., C. Irby, R. Kimball, B. Verplank, and E. Harlem. Designing the Star user interface. Byte Magazine, 7(4):242–282, Apr. 1982.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smyth B. and P. Cotter. A personalized television listings service. Communications of the ACM, 43(8):107–111, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vitalari, N. P., A. Venkatesh, and K. Gronhaug. Computing in the home: shifts in the time allocation patterns of households. Communications of the ACM, 28(5):512–522, May 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whittingham. Digital local storage. Technical report, Durlacher, May 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
    • 1
  • Diomidis Spinellis
    • 1
  1. 1.eLTRUNAthens University of Economics & BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations