Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing for video: investigating the contextual cues within viewing situations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The viewing of video increasingly occurs in a wide range of public and private environments via a range of static and mobile devices. The proliferation of content on demand and the diversity of the viewing situations means that delivery systems can play a key role in introducing audiences to contextually relevant content of interest whilst maximising the viewing experience for individual viewers. However, for video delivery systems to do this, they need to take into account the diversity of the situations where video is consumed, and the differing viewing experiences that users desire to create within them. This requires an ability to identify different contextual viewing situations as perceived by users. This paper presents the results from a detailed, multi-method, user-centred field study with 11 UK-based users of video-based content. Following a review of the literature (to identify viewing situations of interest on which to focus), data collection was conducted comprising observation, diaries, interviews and self-captured video. Insights were gained into whether and how users choose to engage with content in different public and private spaces. The results identified and validated a set of contextual cues that characterise distinctive viewing situations. Four archetypical viewing situations were identified: ‘quality time’, ‘opportunistic planning’, ‘sharing space but not content’ and ‘opportunistic self-indulgence’. These can be differentiated in terms of key contextual factors: solitary/shared experiences, public/private spaces and temporal characteristics. The presence of clear contextual cues provides the opportunity for video delivery systems to better tailor content and format to the viewing situation or additionally augment video services through social media in order to provide specific experiences sensitive to both temporal and physical contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ali K, Stam WV (2004) TiVo: making show recommendations using a distributed collaborative filtering architecture. In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 394–401

  2. Koren Y (2009) The BellKor solution to the Netflix grand prize. Accessed 8 Nov 2011, available at: http://www.netflixprize.com/community/viewtopic.php?id=1537

  3. Rohlfing KJ, Rehm M, Goecke KU (2003) Situatedness: the Interplay between context(s) and situation. J Cogn Cult 3(2):132–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Harrison S, Dourish P (1996) Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. ACM, Boston, pp 67–76

    Google Scholar 

  5. Winograd T (2001) Architectures for context. Hum Comput Interact 16(2, 3 & 4):401–419

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bellotti V, Edwards K (2001) Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum Comput Interact 16(2, 3 & 4):193–212

    Google Scholar 

  7. Breese, J., Heckerman, D. & Kadie,C., (1998). Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp 43-52

  8. Ungar L, Foster D (1998) Clustering methods for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the workshop on recommendation systems at the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 112–128

  9. Bernhaupt R, Weiss A, Tscheligi M (2009) Users’ needs, desires, and design preferences for recommendations in the living room. Multimed Syst 15(3):159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Konston J (2001) Heavyweight applications of lightweight user models: a look at collaborative filtering recommender systems and real time personalisation. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference in user modelling (UM2001), Southofen, Germany, p. 314

  11. Lekakos K, Giaglis GM (2006) Improving the prediction accuracy of recommendation algorithms: approaches anchored in human factors. Interact Comput 18(3):410–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Partridge K, Price B (2009) Enhancing mobile recommender systems with activity inference. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference in user modelling, adaptation and personalisation, (UMAP2009) Trento, Italy, pp 308–318

  13. Bernhaupt R, Obrist M, Weiss A, Beck E, Tscheligi M (2008) Trends in the living room and beyond: results from ethnographic studies using creative and playful probing. ACM Comput Entertain 6(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Papper RA, Holmes ME, Popovich, MN, Bloxham M (2005) Middletown media studies II: the media day. Ball State University Center for Media Design, Muncie. Accessed 5 May 2011, available at: http://www.bsu.edu/cmd/insightandresearch

  15. O’Hara K, Mitchell AS, Vorbau A (2007) Consuming video on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 857–866

  16. Tamminen S, Oulasvirta A, Toiskallio K, Krankainen A (2004) Understanding mobile contexts. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8(2):135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Södergård C (2003). Mobile television-technology and user experiences. VTT, ESPOO Finland

  18. Miyauchi K, Sugahara T, Oda H (2008) Relax or study? A qualitative user study on the usage of mobile tv and video. In: Changing television environments. Proceedings of the 6th European conference, EuroITV 2008. Salzburg Austria, pp 128–132

  19. Vorbau W, Mitchell A, O’Hara K (2007) “My iPod is my Pacifier”: an investigation on the everyday practices of mobile video consumption. In: HotMobile 2007. Eighth IEEE workshop on mobile computing systems and applications, pp 29–33

  20. Repo P, Hyvonen K, Pantzar M, Timinonen P (2004) Users inventing ways to enjoy new mobile services—the case of watching mobile videos. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on systems science, pp 5–8

  21. Perry M, O’Hara K, Sellen A, Brown B, Harper R (2001) Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 8(4):323–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Taylor A, Harper R (2003) Switching on to switch off. Inside the smart home. Springer, London, pp 115–126

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Center for research excellence (2009) Video consumer mapping study. Accessed 3 March 2012, available at: http://researchexcellence.com/committees/vcm_finalreport.pdf

  24. Brown B, Barkhuus L (2006) The television will be revolutionized: effects of PVRs and file sharing on television watching. ACM, Montréal, pp 663–666

    Google Scholar 

  25. O’Brien J, Rodden T, Rouncefield M, Hughes J (1999) At home with the technology: an ethnographic study of a set-top-box trial. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 6(3):282–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Center for research excellence (2010) Additional data mining from VCM Study, Nielsen Consumer 360 Presentation. Accessed 3 March 2012, available at: http://www.researchexcellence.com/vcm/vcm_dm_061610.pdf

  27. Saxbe D, Graesch A, Alvik M (2011) Television as a social or solo activity: understanding families’ everyday television viewing patterns. Commun Res 28(2):180–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Brien J, Rodden T (1997) Interactive systems in domestic environments. ACM, Amsterdam, pp 247–259

    Google Scholar 

  29. Greene JC (2007) Mixed methods in social inquiry. Wiley, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  30. Silverman D (2001) Interpreting qualitative data, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor A, Harper R (2002) Age-old practices in the ‘new world’: a study of gift-giving between teenage mobile phone users. ACM, Minneapolis, pp 439–446

    Google Scholar 

  32. Berg BL, Lawrence B (1998) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mark G, Christensen U, Shafae M (2001) A methodology using a micro camera for studying mobile IT usage and person mobility. In: CHI workshop on mobile communications: understanding users, adoption & design, ACM CHI., Seattle, WA, USA

  34. Rosenthal R (1976) Experimenter effects in behavioral research. Irvington, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zouinar M, Relieu M, Salembier P, Calvet G (2004) Observation and capture of multimodal interaction in mobile situations. In: Proceedings of the 1st French-speaking conference on mobility and ubiquity computing. ACM, Nice, France, pp 5–8

  36. Christensen U (2001) Conventions and articulation work in a mobile workplace. ACM SIGGROUP Bull 22(3):16–21

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kirakowski J, Corbett M (1990) Effective methodology for the Study of HCI. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Carroll J, Howard S, Vetere F, Peck J, Murphy J (2002) Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. In: System sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th annual Hawaii international conference on, pp 1777–1785

  39. Marianna Obrist M, Bernhaupt R, Tscheligi M (2008) Interactive TV for the home: an ethnographic study on users’ requirements and experiences. Int J Hum Comput Interact 24(2):174–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cesar P, Geerts D (2011) Past, present, and future of social TV: a categorization. In: Consumer communications and networking conference (CCNC), IEEE, pp 347–351

  41. Lull J (1990) Inside family viewing. Routhledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  42. Weilenmann A (2003) Doing mobility. Doctoral dissertation, Dept of Informatics, Göteborg University, Sweden. Gothenburg Studies in Informatics, Report 28, June 2003

  43. Kappel G, Proll B, Retschitzegger W, Schwinger W, Hofer T (2001) Modelling ubiquitous web applications—a comparison of approaches. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on Information integration and web-based applications and services (ii WAS2001), Linz, Austria, pp 163–174

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Design School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK

    Kevin Mercer, Andrew May & Val Mitchel

Authors
  1. Kevin Mercer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Val Mitchel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew May.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mercer, K., May, A. & Mitchel, V. Designing for video: investigating the contextual cues within viewing situations. Pers Ubiquit Comput 18, 723–735 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0702-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0702-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation