Advertisement

A UX Evaluation Approach for Second-Screen Applications

  • Jorge Abreu
  • Pedro Almeida
  • Telmo Silva
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 605)

Abstract

Technological devices surrounding the television are changing, leading to changes in viewers’ habits and to the development of second-screen applications created to provide better TV viewing experiences. Used while watching television, the 2ndVision application presented in this paper is able to identify – through audio-fingerprint – content being displayed on the TV screen and present enhanced information on the second-screen. Under a participatory design approach, the development of the application took in consideration the users’ opinion regarding its main functionalities and interface solutions and included evaluation test sessions conducted in laboratory settings. This paper reports on the adopted UX evaluation approach where opinions regarding instrumental, non-instrumental and emotional impact of the application were collected with a combination of SUS, AttrakDiff and SAM scales.

The results show that users experienced no major navigation problems and part of the iconography was validated. Considering the main goals of the application users were satisfied and interested in having such an application for providing additional information about the TV shows they watch. In addition the consistent variation of results between two sets of evaluation sessions, shows that the adopted UX evaluation approach is suitable to be used in a participatory design development of second-screen applications.

Keywords

Second-screen Interactive television User experience Usability Evaluation methodologies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is a result of the 2NDVISION project, funded by QREN (grant agreement no. 38783). Authors are grateful to Mónica Aresta, Lígia Duro, Rita Oliveira and André Ferreira for their work on the project and also to the remaining project partners: Altran and Outsoft.

References

  1. 1.
    Jancovich, M.: Time, scheduling and cinema-going. Media International Australia. Incorporating Culture Policy, no. 139, pp. 88–95 (2011). http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=055670613543388;res=IELLCC, ISSN: 1329-878X
  2. 2.
    Abreu, J., Almeida, P., Teles, B., Reis, M.: Viewer behaviors and practices in the (new) television environment. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video (EuroITV 2013), pp. 5–12. ACM, New York (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2465958.2465970
  3. 3.
    Geerts, D., Leenheer, D., Heijstraten, S., Negenman, J.: In front of and behind the second screen: viewer and producer perspectives on a companion App. In: Proceedings of the TVX 2014 Conference, 25–27 June 2014, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, pp. 95–102 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun, X., May, M.: Design of the user experience for personalized mobile services. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. (IJHCI) 5(2), 21–39 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solano, A., Collazos, C., Rusu, C., Merchan, L.: Evaluating the usability of interactive digital television Applications. In: 2013 Tenth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), pp. 127–132. IEEE, April 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Nielsen Company: Screen wars: the battle for eye space in a TV-everywhere world, March 2015. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2015/screen-wars-the-battle-for-eye-space-in-a-tv-everywhere-world.html. Accessed 13 June 2015
  7. 7.
    Red Bee Media: Second Screen Series - Paper 1: Setting The Scene (2012). http://www.redbeemedia.com/sites/all/files/downloads/second_screen_series_paper_1_whitepaper_red_bee_media.pdf
  8. 8.
    Cano, P., Batle, E., Kalker, T., Haitsma, J.: A review of algorithms for audio fingerprinting. In: Paper Presented at the 2002 IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO DIS 9241-210:2010: Ergonomics of human system interaction -Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). International Standardization Organization (ISO), SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, D., Adipat, B.: Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 18(3), 293–308 (2005). doi: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Treder, M., Pachucki, A., Zielonko, A., Łukasiewicz, K.: Mobile book of trends 2014. UX Pin & Movade internal report (2014). http://studio.uxpin.com/ebooks/mobile-design-book-of-trends/
  12. 12.
    Bank, C., Zuberi, W.: Mobile UI design patterns. UX Pin & Movade internal report (2014). http://studio.uxpin.com/ebooks/mobile-design-patterns/
  13. 13.
    Lee, K., Flinn, J., Giuli, T., Noble, B., Peplin, C.: AMC: verifying user interface properties for vehicular applications. In: MobiSys 2013, 25–28 June 2013, Taipei, Taiwan (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mahlke, S., Thuring, M.: Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. In: CHI 2007 Proceedings - Emotion & Empathy. San Jose, CA (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross, A., Bongartz, S.: Why do I like it? Investigating the product-specificity of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (NordiCHI 2012), pp. 322–330. ACM, New York (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2399016.2399067
  16. 16.
    Law, E., Schaik, P., Roto, V.: Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 72(6), 526–541 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006, ISSN 1071-5819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bach, C., Gauducheau, N., Salembier, P.: Combining interviews and scales in the multidimensional evaluation of user experience: a case study in 3D games. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE 2011), pp. 157–160. ACM, New York (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2074712.2074743
  18. 18.
    Aranyi, G., van Schaik, P.: Modeling user-experience with news Web sites. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 1–23 (2014). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23348/epdf Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Weerdmeester, P.W., Thomas, P.W., McLelland, I.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Attrakdiff (2011). http://www.attrakdiff.de/
  21. 21.
    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, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8118, pp. 642–659. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Ther. Exper. Psychiatry 25(1), 49–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Aveiro - DigimediaAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations