Proposal of a Tangible Interface to Enhance Seniors’ TV Experience: UX Evaluation of SIX

  • Ana Patrícia OliveiraEmail author
  • Mário Vairinhos
  • Óscar Mealha
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 813)


The computational innovations of recent years have enabled the emergence of a new technological paradigm that allows everyday objects to integrate new usages with the reception and transmission of information. These objects are now referred to as smart objects, because they augment the user interaction by connecting to the Internet and embedding electronic sensors. This new use of objects in daily life presents several conceptual, technological, economic and social challenges.

This paper presents and describes the SIX, an artifact with a tangible interface with the shape of a cube to select TV channels. One of the aims of the SIX is to abolish seniors’ difficulties when they interact with a TV remote control, namely selecting channels. In order to understand the expectations and needs of seniors while they are using the SIX, an empirical study was performed, which characterized the affordance of the SIX. The methodological approach for the evaluation was based on User Experience (UX) and Usability tests. This empirical study was intended to improve the SIX in terms of its handling (ergonomics), interaction and appearance (aesthetics), meeting the needs of its target audience. This paper will also report on the empirical study’s method and results’ analysis and discussion.


Tangible interface Television Internet of Things Cube  TV remote Evaluation UX Seniors 



The authors would like to acknowledge AlticeLabs@UA for funding this project and Patronato de Nossa Senhora de Fátima de Vilar (Aveiro) for their partnership in the evaluation of the SIX.


  1. 1.
    Bernhaupt, R., Desnos, A., Pirker, M., Schwaiger, D.: TV interaction beyond the button press. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9297, pp. 412–419. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epelde, G., Valencia, X., Carrasco, E., Posada, J., Abascal, J., Diaz-Orueta, U., Zinnikus, I., Husodo-Schulz, C.: Providing universally accessible interactive services through TV sets: implementation and validation with elderly users. Multimed. Tools Appl. 67(2), 497–528 (2013). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bobeth, J., Schmehl, S., Kruijff, E., Deutsch, S., Tscheligi, M.: Evaluating performance and acceptance of older adults using freehand gestures for TV menu control. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video (EuroITV 2012), pp. 35–44. ACM, New York (2012).
  4. 4.
    Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Miotto, A., Ferrari, E.: A comparative study of remote controls for digital TV receivers. In: Tscheligi, M., Obrist, M., Lugmayr, A. (eds.) EuroITV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5066, pp. 318–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibson, J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. HM Publications, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norman, D.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norman, D.: Affordances and Design. The Nielsen Norman Group (2004).
  8. 8.
    IOT Council, What is the Internet of Things? Accessed 19 July 2017
  9. 9.
    Ishii, H., Lakatos, D., Bonanni, L., Labrune, J.B.: Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. Interactions 19(1), 38–51 (2012). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xiaomi Global Community, Xiaomi Mi Smart Home Cube White. Accessed 10 July 2017
  11. 11.
    Family of the Arts, Cube. Accessed 10 July 2017
  12. 12.
    Orvibo, Orvibo Magic Cube Wifi Remote Control. Accessed 10 July 2017
  13. 13.
    Block, F., Schmidt, A., Villar, N., Gellersen, H.W.: Towards a playful user interface for home entertainment systems. In: Markopoulos, P., Eggen, B., Aarts, E., Crowley, J.L. (eds.) EUSAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3295, pp. 207–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tahir, M., Bailly, G., Lecolinet, E.: ARemote: a tangible interface for selecting TV channels. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence, pp. 298–299. IEEE (2007).
  15. 15.
    The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (CEUD), What is Universal Design. Accessed 19 July 2017
  16. 16.
    Klironomos, I., Abascal, J.: An Introduction to the Key Issues Relating to Accessible User Interfaces, Cardiac Project, EU (2010).
  17. 17.
    Nielsen, J.: Accessibility Is Not Enough, Nielsen Norman Group (2005).
  18. 18.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Guidance on Usability, ISO 9241-11: 1998, ISO (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Springett, M.V., Griffiths, R.N.: Accessibility of interactive television for users with low vision: learning from the web. In: Cesar, P., Chorianopoulos, K., Jensen, J.F. (eds.) EuroITV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4471, pp. 76–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chorianopoulos, K.: User interface design principles for interactive television applications. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 24(6), 556–573 (2008). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oliveira, R., Abreu, J., Almeida, M.: Promoting interactive television (iTV) accessibility: an adapted service for users with visual impairments. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 16(3), 533–544 (2017). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ishii, H.: Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. xv–xxv. ACM, New York (2008).
  23. 23.
    Winckler, M., Bernhaupt, R., Bach, C.: Identification of UX dimensions for incident reporting systems with mobile applications in urban contexts: a longitudinal study. Cogn. Technol. Work 18(4), 673–694 (2016). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Aveiro – DeCAAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations