• Save
Digital Convergent Design Considerations for Interactive TV
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Digital Convergent Design Considerations for Interactive TV



Digital Convergent Design Considerations for Interactive TV

Digital Convergent Design Considerations for Interactive TV



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



4 Embeds 22

http://www.slideshare.net 11
http://www.linkedin.com 9
http://www.di8it.com 1
http://di8it.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • very interested
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Me interesa la parte de preferencias y tipos de uso de TDi
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Digital Convergent Design Considerations for Interactive TV Digital Convergent Design Considerations for Interactive TV Presentation Transcript

  • Digital Convergent Design considerations for Interactive Television
  • WARNING ! To be consistent with the theme of the presentation. The movie clip you are about to see was intentionally shot using a mobile phone … a great example of a convergent device. Please excuse the shaking quality of the video … it's really not our fault f lt … merely a by-product of l b d t f convergence
  • Introduction shot with my mobile phone ☺ Ian Valentine, CEO MiniWeb Interactive Valentine
  • “ With digitisation, all of the media become translatable into each other - computer bits migrate merrily - and escape from their traditional means of transmission …” Stuart Brand
  • Convergence
  • Chaos
  • “Although convergence has been a popular topic of discussion within the field of HCI for more than a decade, very little empirical data has been reported on the use of converged solutions.” d l ti ” Lyn Pemberton
  • Convergent Media Design is a design strategy that focuses on identifying and providing solutions to implications of convergent media systems and p g y the challenges of convergence.
  • Because of the subjective and qualitative nature of “design” we felt it was important to introduce certain concepts that constitute our framework for thinking about design criteria. This criterion we felt provided a good framework to interpret, evaluate and present the data we have collected in a consistent manner manner.
  • Semiotic Design Design as a form of communication between two actors (the designer and user). This is an idea introduced by Clarisse de Souza in her book “Semiotic Engineering and Semiotic Engineering” furtherpromoted and expanded upon by Don Norman in his book “Psychology of Everyday Things”
  • Affordance The designer can create clues that naturally guide the user to “perceive-able action”
  • According to Norman there are also constraints: three basic categories exist - physical logical and cultural physical, logical,and cultural. Physical constraints are closely tied to real affordances e.g. it is impossible to move the cursor outside the screen. screen Logical constraints use reasoning to determine the alternatives, alternatives and are valuable in guiding behaviour behaviour. Finally, cultural constraints are conventions shared by a cultural group e.g. Q g p g QWERTY keyboard. y
  • In the context of convergent media design we introduce another category that is a slight variation of a physical constraint. t i t “Device constraints” we describe as the technological limitations of a particular device in being able to accommodate another medium not conventionally associated with that device. A device may be designed to challenge the technological limitations of an intended medium but unable to adapt to accommodate another medium so easily
  • Meta-Communication M t C i ti user designer user
  • As services attempt to traverse platforms seamlessly, implications and design considerations will begin to surface. These implications will in someway be associated to poor communication somewhere in the design communication process and will be manifested i th system d ig i ti d ill b if t d in the t design. It is important that the convergent media designer narrows the gap between the conceptual model of the system and the mental model of p y the user; while trading-off against constraints - functionality and usability.
  • The main aim of this research was to gain an understanding of people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviour towards convergent media.
  • Data Collection Strategy -Structured interview: (quantitative) General Questions Questions were focused to mobile phone, internet and digital television technologies. Specific questions Demographics 15-20 min -Field notes (qualitative) -Incentives: Incentives: T-shirts Sky Navigators for Sky users (remote control) -Pilot Test: 19 people
  • Demographics g p Population size: 89 (randomly selected from members of the general public) bli ) 43% Female 57% Male Population age range: 16-65 years old.
  • In order to determine the questions that needed to be asked, the research aims were further broken down into three categories from which question were constructed around. 1. Competitive/complementary category 2. Behaviour category 3. 3 Perception category
  • 1 Competitive/complementary category: This category surveyed participants’ exposure to various media technologies and their preference in using a convergent service.
  • -Many participants received digital TV as part of a Triple service f (telephone, internet and digital TV) -Some participants prefer t perform i t S ti i t f to f internet related activities on th t l t d ti iti the internet (where they have broadband/wireless access) and not through their televisions. -Some participants are reluctant to and just prefer to watch television, ignoring these services.
  • “it`s a bit of a FAF ! isn`t it” … “No, would be a pain in the arse th those little littl buttons” QUESTION: Do you use the interactive features on your TV?” This slide is based on actual ANSWER: NO field notes
  • “ I would … but my TV is too slow for that “ QUESTION: Do you use the interactive features on your TV?” This slide is based on actual ANSWER: NO field notes
  • “Darling, I’m too old to Darling, I m use the internet!” (however she was very engage in using the interactive service on her digital television and in fact could be consisted a “heavy user”) QUESTION: Do you use the interactive features on your TV?” This slide is based on actual ANSWER: NO field notes
  • “No no no… I don t No don’t know if I would be able to come back to my programme programme” QUESTION: Do you use the interactive features on your TV?” This slide is based on actual ANSWER: NO field notes
  • 2 Behaviour category: This category surveyed the behaviour of participants. It considered frequency of usage and the context of that usage.
  • Hours watching TV per day and interactive TV usage 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Less than 3 hours About 3 hours More than 3 hours Interactive Features NO Interactive features YES Only 26,6% of infrequent TV users (spend less than 3 hr per day) use interactive features on their TV. There is a correlation between heavy TV users and interactive features as 45,5% of the heavy TV users use the interactive features of their TV.
  • Scenarios of usage of interactive TV services 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Between commercials While waiting for show Telly for myself Play games with family to start Interactive services were always considered secondary to the primary activity of watching TV TV.
  • Interactive TV services usage 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 40 00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00% ws ow t a or ce TV ... ci at g ne g sp D sh in TV er ch in er Vo bl on m am st g m ity am l, e in m te m ai us eb G al ew co la Em co G re Pa W up vi T- d d re r te ilo ch Vo s Ta es at C Pr Users go interactive when it was associated with enhancing the TV show they were viewing. y g
  • 3 Perception category: This category surveyed attitudes towards usage and the potential context of usage. It surveyed potential and asked if people “would?”
  • Users perception about ease-of-use of the interactive features difficult; 6 take some getting use to; 31 relativ easy; 48 ely
  • “Well is should be easy if its on your TV isn t it? isn’t it?” QUESTION: Do you think finding information on TV would be… This slide is based on actual ANSWER: Easy field notes
  • En 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 te rta N in ew m s en ta nd m ed O i nl in e ba nk in g Ed uc at io n Sp Tr or av ts el an d bo N ok HS in he g al th se rv ic Ph es on e di re ct or y T- co m m Information that users WOULD search on TV er ce O th er
  • Would users give credit card details on TV? Yes 36% No 64%
  • “Yeah… it is like the internet, right? right?” QUESTION: Would you give your credit card details on TV? This slide is based on actual ANSWER: Yes field notes
  • “No.. I think I’ll wait till it’s more secure” QUESTION: Would you give your credit card details on TV? This slide is based on actual ANSWER: No! field notes
  • E-commerce usage and T E d T-commerce perception ti 30 26 25 20 17 15 10 7 6 5 2 1 0 Daily Weekly Monthly No Yes 64% of participants wouldn’t give credit card details on TV. However, 71,4% of them do buy goods via the Internet.
  • 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Bo ok s 30 En te rta in m en t 45 Va ca tio n 26 Pi zz a 22 G ro ce rie s What would they buy? ? 13 Pa yin g Bi lls 14 O th er 8
  • Behaviour vs Perception in Interactive TV activities 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% , 0,00% V oted Tailor Press red T- Catch up Pause reality viewing Gambling Gaming commercia VoD Web on TV Email, chat commerce latest news TV... show sport l Serie1 40,00% 43,30% 6,70% 16,70% 20,00% 86,70% 43,30% 33,30% 40,00% 10,00% 6,70% Serie2 33,90% 58,90% 1,80% 21,40% 33,90% 73,20% 42,90% 58,90% 62,50% 39,30% 44,60% While 10% of participants who have interactive services declared that they use web on TV (behaviour) (behaviour), 39% of participants who don’t have interactive features said that they would like to use this service (perception).
  • ONLY 1 potential participant we couldn`t interview Because: NO TV, NO Internet, NO Mobile Phone This slide is based on actual field notes
  • “Convergence is remediation under another C name, and the remediation is mutual: the Internet refashions television even as television refashions the I t f hi th Internet” t” Bolter, J. & Grusin, R. 1999 This process of remediation described by Bolter and p y Grusin exposes the need for new design consider-ations - convergent design considerations.
  • Convergent design should consider the medium the service is converging towards. A service that towards has been designed for one medium then transferred directly to another, particularly between two platforms that offer different device constraints and affordances, is likely to fail in the design communication.
  • Convergent service must be designed to be intuitive to understand, easy to use and valuable to the user. User centred design is another important consideration for good convergent design. It becomes essential in this competitive environment to match the potential users’ expectation with t e atc t e pote t a use s e pectat o t the functionality of the convergent system.
  • Understanding the mental models of the user specific to a particular device and identifying transferable effective aspects of that mental y g p model in another device can help users to understand and potentially accept the convergent services. Promoting convergent features is also a part of convergent design considerations. Promotion can also be approached through the design process.
  • Branding is also very important to consider as brand strategy and communication are essential parts of creating user experience. “Physical branding then becomes a part of the drive for usability, as we try to help the user answer questions about what the service offers, who is offers providing it, what its relationship is to a broadcast programme, who, if anyone, is asking for payment andso on. In other words, clear branding may help the user develop a clear mental model of the service, which will enhance usability.”. Pemberton & Fallahkhair
  • Do you have any questions, ti mate!? Acknowledgements: Richard Griffiths (UoB) Ian Valentine (Mi i b) I V l i (Miniweb) CONTACT: Begoña B B ñ Bagur bbagur@di8it.com www.di8it.com