1. Mobile tv or tv on mobile?
iterative contextual and usability user research
on TV practices and experiences
Dr. An Jacobs (IBBT-SMIT) & Dirk Bollen (IBBT-CUO)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel KULeuven

2. 2
Intro

3. 3
Mobile TV : anyplace, anytime ?

4. 4
Conceptual redesign : user research
Where, when and how
is watching television on a mobile appropriate?
step 1: Information from other trials,
contextual inquiry, literature
step 2: Proxy technology assessment
= Using existing technologies
that resemble as much as possible
the affordances under development

5. Proxy Technology Assessment (PTA)
 Elicit the VARIETY of everyday life, user experiences/
practices to forecast everyday practices with future
technologies
 Integrated in a multi method social research plan
a) free access to vodaphone, with/without phone (4 weeks)
b) logging use (Proximus)
c) tasks (week 1)
d) 4 cultural probe question cards (week 3)
e) diary & auto-collecting photos (week 3)
f) in depth interview
with other proxies (after week 4)
 Output:
Analysis & recommendations;
Personas & scenarios

6. Recommendations : Technical barriers
 onnection
C
 Coverage: anywhere?
 Speed of connection
 consequence: zapping is difficult
 ardware:
H
 first place a useful phone
 quality of image and sound
 almost everyone: no earphone use
 screen size?
 Voor het nieuws gaat dat nog, maar bij de sport zie ik toch graag de bal.”
“

7. Recommendations : Safety and image
Safety issues
 Theft
 Show off/mister gadget image
 Road safety
 Want ik vind ook een serieus bezwaar aan het kijken van mobiele
“
televisie dat is dat je daar niet mee op een tram of in een bus of zo
gaat zitten. (...) Allez ja ik zou me toch niet zo dadelijk nog veilig
voelen.”

8. 8
Time ideals

9. 9
Place ideals

10. Ideals on social context

11. Recommendations : programmes & interactivity
 Channel: same as TV View duration log Volume 4 weeks 10 persons
< 5 min. 469
 Programmes: short 5 min. - 15 min. 79
15 min. - 30 min. 20
 On demand > 30 min. 4
N=572, (01/05/2006 – 31/05/2006)
I: Wanneer kijk je het meeste tv op je vast toestel?
R: Dat is vooral 's avonds.
I: Een beetje een parallel met het mobiel toestel.
R: Ja, alleen dat er 's middags is bijgekomen en de dode momenten overdag.
(Male: 45, non owner)

12. Personas & scenarios
 Aim: communication of results in actionable way
 User behavior and attitudes clustering
 Three potential profiles: Pedro Mertens
 luggers
P “ ik ga eerder op zoek gaan
naar informatieve euh
 ocial fillers
S programma's”
 ong viewers
L
- 43 j, Denderleeuw, girlfriend
- ranslator; commutes 20 min
T
Mobile tv scenario plugger - asketbal, skiing, not much tv
B
- ews & NBA competition
N
- edro use the mob tv on the train or waiting
P - eekend: film
W
- e watches for a short period, e.g news
H - adgets & design
G
- ob tv helps him to keep him informed
M - nternetradio, RSS feeds, looks for
I
in a quick way specfic information, downloaden
music, games

13. 13
Design for mobile devices
 Swiss army knife
 Sms
 Internet
 Music player
 Camera
 Not the same as the real stuff

14. 14
Recommendation from user study
 Mobile user is shifting context /environment
 more interruptible and easy to distract
 Outside/inside
 Not performing one obvious task
 Present in a public, social space
 Quality video and audio
 ‘Channel hopping’ and navigation (faster, less steps, intuitive language use)
 Faster
 less steps
 intuitive language use
 Mobile tv = extension of tv
 In competition with other activities

15. 15
Literature on mobile interface & TV
 All video content should be provided through a single ‘Mobile tv’ area
 Putting the guide between the user and the content significant
changes the nature of the tv experience (Knoche & McCarthy)
 Avoid obstructing tv screen space
 Provide a clear way of adjusting the channel without going ‘back’
 Different forms of channel selection (Taylor & Harper)
 1. Channel hopping
 2. Wait for information
 3. Knowledge of program gide
 4. Paper program guide / on screen EPG

16. 16
Conceptual model
 First abstract design of the user interface
 Based on information from user- and task analysis
 Focus on:
 Overall structure
 Logic
 Navigation

17. 17
Concept model : channel hopping
Iteration 1: try out carrousel idea
Iteration 2: adaptation on technical requirement on loading time

18. 18
Concept model : channel hopping
Iteration 3: combination of 1 & 2

19. 19
Conceptual model EPG
1) 2)
3)

20. 20
Concept model : user interaction
sms
phone Pay channel

21. 21
Concept model : integration

22. 22
Paper prototype
Iterative development by user tests
• 6 users
• different scenario’s and functionalities
• by doing 10 tasks
• pre and post questionnaire

23. 23
Paper prototype results
 Navigation
 Begin trial : users prefer navigation carousel
 End trial : users prefer EPG
 Caution! We did not simulate channel loading time
 No information about long term use
 EPG
 Function timeline in EPG is not clear
 Selection of programs in EPG

24. 24
Paper prototype results
Suggested improvements EPG

25. 25
Implementation
DVB-H first choice
But:
Implementation of concept EPG & carrousel on a 3G device
 Version of paper prototype without suggested
improvements
 A lot implementation problems
 Platform
 Java
 But: test version realized in short development time

26. 26
Evaluation research setup
Step 1: Task observation 3G
introduction of epg and carrousel for 3G test users
- interface: same issues as with paper prototype
Step 2: diary and focusgroup 3G & DVB-H
- new 4 week period (Nov-Dec 2007) 2 groups:
1) first group of 7 persons recruted by survey MICT in
Ghent using DvB-H
-experienced 3G prototype during focusgroup
2) 9 people from first phase PTA research reusing 3G
with prototype application
-experienced DVB-H during focusgroup
• oth 2 week diary and auto-collecting photo’s
B

27. Evaluation results
Reaction on the prototype
 EPG is popular
 Gives a good program overview
 Familiar interface : tv
 EPG solution too advanced
 Channel hopping is improved with introduction of navigation
carousel
Comparing practices: Appropriation of television on mobile device
 Same topics as in 2006
 Validation of previous insights
 Validation of made persona and scenario’s
 No visible changes in attitudes and behavior with mobile TV
 Changing reference point people experienced with 3G in 2006

28. Conclusion