Advertisement

Field Trial of a New iTV Approach: The Potential of Its UX Among Younger Audiences

  • Ana VelhinhoEmail author
  • Sílvia Fernandes
  • Jorge Abreu
  • Pedro Almeida
  • Telmo Silva
Conference paper
  • 168 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1004)

Abstract

The actual video consumption behaviors are blurring the traditional boundaries between linear and non-linear viewing, leveraged by On-demand and Over-the-Top (OTT) content offers. The Managed-Operated Networks (MON) adapted to this shift by providing flexibility to content access via Catch-up and Time-shift TV services. In addition, manufacturers of Smart TVs and high-end media centers (e.g. Apple TV) are offering their commercial solutions with a silo-based approach, lacking a fluid User eXperience (UX) when the user switches between proprietary applications (apps) displaying different settings and User Interfaces (UIs). In this framework, OTT providers have been taking the lead on setting the trends with partially unified cross-source UIs, enriched with personalization features to enhance the UX. These trends also contrast with Pay-TV solutions based in UIs mostly oriented to the traditional TV channel’s line-up. Based on this opportunity, an operator-based iTV solution, delivered over a set-top box (STB), was developed within the UltraTV R&D project. This initiative brought together the academic and the industry fields to design, develop and validate a concept of a profile-based and cross-source recommendation UI (offering, at the same level, content from linear and non-linear TV, Netflix, YouTube and Facebook videos). After an iterative evaluation through expert reviews and laboratory tests, a field trial validation, with end users, of a fully functional prototype was set. Qualitative data collection methods along with a triangulation of UX scales were applied to gather opinions and measure usability, hedonic and emotional parameters. The results were arranged by age groups and viewing dynamics to reveal motivational indicators related to the achieved viewing experience. The unified access to different sources fostered content discovery and was particularly valued by younger audiences. The outcomes from this empirical study aim to provide valuable contributions to push the next generation of television platforms and bring younger audiences back to the TV screen.

Keywords

Content unification Field trial Interactive television User experience Viewing behaviors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is a result of the UltraTV - UltraHD TV Application Ecosystem project (grant agreement no.17738), funded by COMPETE 2020, Portugal 2020 and the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER). Authors are grateful to the project partners.

References

  1. 1.
    Ericsson-Consumer lab. TV and Media 2017: A Consumer-Driven Future of Media. Ericsson, Stockholm (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abreu, J., Almeida, P., Teles, B.M.: TV discovery & enjoy: a new approach to help users finding the right TV Program to to Watch. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video -TVX 2014, pp. 63–70. ACM, Newcastle (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abreu, J., Nogueira, J., Becker, V., Cardoso, B.: Survey of catch-up TV and other time-shift services: a comprehensive analysis and taxonomy of linear and nonlinear television. Telecommun. Syst. 64(1), 57–74 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vanattenhoven, J., Geerts, D.: Broadcast, video-on-demand, and other ways to watch television content. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video - TVX 2015, pp. 73–82. ACM, Brussels (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nielsen-Company. Screen wars: The battle for eye space in a TV-everywhere world. Nielsen Insights, Nielsen, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Almeida, P., et al.: Iterative user experience evaluation of a user interface for the unification of TV contents. In: Abásolo, M.J., Abreu, J., Almeida, P., Silva, T. (eds.) jAUTI 2017. CCIS, vol. 813, pp. 44–57. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90170-1_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Almeida, P., et al.: UltraTV: an iTV content unification prototype. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video - TVX 2018. ACM, Seoul (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowdermilk, T.: User-Centered Design: A Developer’s Guide to Building User-Friendly Applications, vol. 1. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2013). (M. Treseler, ed.)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abreu, J., Almeida, P., Silva, T., Velhinho, A., Fernandes, S.: Using experts review to validate an iTV UI for the unification of contents. In: Proceedings of The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2018). Springer, Orlando (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Almeida, P., Ferraz de Abreu, J., Oliveira, E., Velhinho, A.: Expert evaluation of a user interface for the unification of TV contents. In: Proceedings of the 6th Iberoamerican Conference on Applications and Usability of Interactive TV - jAUTI 2017, pp. 59–70. Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Almeida, P., Jorge, A., Fernandes, S., Oliveira, E.: Content unification in iTV to enhance user experience: The UltraTV Project. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video - TVX 2018. ACM, Seoul (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Waterman, D., Sherman, R., Wook Ji, S.: The economics of online television: industry development, aggregation, and “TV Everywhere”. Telecommun. Policy 37(9), 725–736 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abreu, J., Almeida, P., Silva, T.: A UX evaluation approach for second-screen applications. In: Abásolo, M.J., Perales, F.J., Bibiloni, A. (eds.) jAUTI/CTVDI -2015. CCIS, vol. 605, pp. 105–120. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38907-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mahlke, S., Thüring, M.: Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2007, pp. 915–918. ACM, San Jose (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bernhaupt, R., Pirker, M.: Evaluating user experience for interactive television: towards the development of a domain-specific user experience questionnaire. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8118, pp. 642–659. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine on - IHM 2008, pp. 11–15 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brooke, J.: SUS - a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martins, A.I., Rosa, A.F., Queirós, A., Silva, A., Rocha, N.P.: European Portuguese validation of the System Usability Scale (SUS). Procedia Comput. Sci. 67, 293–300 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment semantic differential manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Therapy Exp. Psychiatry 25, 49–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F.: AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität, pp. 187–196. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods Qualitative Inquiry, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digimedia, Department of Communication and ArtsUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations