2. 4
Introduction
“Let’s go invent tomorrow instead of worrying about what happened yesterday.”
-Steve jobs-
Two months ago, we were challenged to think about the Smart TV of tomorrow and different important
dimensions linked to this. Concretely, TP Vision defied us to provide an answer to several struggles within
the company such as user friendliness, competitiveness and privacy issues. With little knowledge, but a lot
of enthusiasm, we started our leap into the unknown.
The foundation of this report can be brought back to three lanes. The first road leads to usability. The
main purpose here is to determine what is needed to provide consumers a user-friendly interface. The
second track is all about creation, this refers more specifically to the discovery of opportunities and new
functionalities for TP Vision to distinguish themselves from competitors. The third dimension treats the
aspect of privacy. The matching objective is to define the consumer’s tipping points, the boundary line
between acceptable and non-acceptable forms of personal data collection. These three lanes or dimensions
and their corresponding research questions will be discussed more in-depth further in this report. We
generated five personas as a guide through this whole process. In the end, we have created a mock-up
where we gathered all our findings in a more tangible outcome.
We start this report with a brief explanation of the research methods we used to approach each one of
these challenges from an innovative perspective. Secondly, we go into detail regarding the personas, specific
profiles we set out. Thirdly, we discuss our findings per dimension based on several types of investigation
techniques. At the end of this report, we re-evaluate the road we have travelled and the thresholds we had
to cross during this research.
Introduction
Introduction
1. Methodology
Usability
Creation
Privacy
Validation survey
2. Meet our personas
Emma, Media Traditionalist
Laura, Media Rookie
Patrick, Digital Adept
David, Digital Omnivore
Tom, Media Devourer
3. A closer look on usability
The importance of being Smart in use
Key concepts
General remarks
4. Creation: The Smart TV of the future
Let’s get personal
Check this out
Compatibility is key
Where’s the Smart remote?
Is this product saleable?
Wild ideas about future TVs
5. Privacy from a SMART perspective
Literature Review
Findings
Advice
6. Inspiring Mock-up
7. Overall Conclusion
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
13
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
21
22
25
3. 65
1. Methodology
WHY? We chose this research method in order to
analyse the potential difference in usability between
both interfaces, the frustrations and delights of
the user and the switching process between the
two interfaces. discussed per dimension to keep
everything structured. This design allowed us to
analyse both interfaces’ user friendliness on short
term.
Field test
WHAT? The first idea was to evaluate the usability
of both interfaces on a longer term and the ease of
transition between both versions. In the end, we
were only able to focus on the user friendliness of
the current interface as the update got delayed.
We approached this problem in a flexible way
and reformed our plan in a short time. The end
result is explained below. We started the field test
by installing the televisions in the participant’s
household. Afterwards, we took some time for
a short debriefing and an interview about Smart
TVs in general. After a test period of two weeks,
the respondents had to fill in a survey about the
user experience of the current UI, which measures
user friendliness, ease of learning and satisfaction.
Together with this, we gave them some preparatory
tasks in function of the in-depth interview. During
this interview, we tried to uncover the user’s deeper
thoughts and objections on the interface after a
longer period of use.
HOW? This time we recruited nine people, based
on the personas. This number depended on how
many televisions TP Vision could provide us.
The respondents tested the current UI during
approximately three weeks.
WHY? We picked this investigation method to study
the usability of the current UI. The difference with
the lab test is the spontaneous use of the Smart TV,
without any ‘forced’ assignments. In addition, they
made use of the interface on a longer term.
CREATION
Focus group
WHAT? A qualitative technique that focuses on a
specific product or topic, Smart TVs in our case. The
aim of focus groups is to stimulate discussion instead
of individual responses to formal questions. The
collected data provided by this method may not be
entirely representative for the general population,
but offers a closer look on the preferences and
beliefs of the consumers on this subject.
HOW?Twomoderatorsguidedthefocusgroupinthe
right direction. In order to create an optimal climate
for debate, we recruited an internally homogeneous
but externally heterogeneous sample. Two persons
corresponding to each one of our personas were
included, resulting into ten participants.
WHY? We selected this method to be able to track
people’s deeper thoughts and ideas about certain
aspects linked to Smart TV. Due to this technique, we
were able to put outcomes into a specific context.
Co-creation
WHAT? Co-creation refers to a variant of the focus
group above, where certain tools are used to trigger
the brainstorming mechanism of each participant.
The most important one is the simple fact that
several people are put together around a table. As
a consequence, they have the possibility not only to
communicate their own ideas, in addition they can
also think further on the suggestions of others.
HOW? To maximise the chances of a good result, we
brought together five people corresponding to our
personas. Next to that, we added three lead users
to the group. These ‘experts’ are very valuable,
because they have widespread product knowledge
and possess the ability to reveal certain needs to
enrich a product before others do.
USABILITY
Laboratory experiment
WHAT? The first technique we implemented is
‘Cognitive walkthroughs’, where we created different
scenarios the participants had to go through. Each
scenario tested five functions (watching TV, TV
guide, favourite list, settings and Smart features).
This allowed us to make a comparison between the
usability of the current UI and the new one. The
second technique was ‘Thinking aloud protocol’.
The purpose of this method is to have participants
express both their positive and negative feelings,
thoughts and experiences out loud during the
experiment so that we, as researchers, could capture
them. We concluded the lab interviews with a short
exit interview. That way we could gain deeper insights
about the participant’s thoughts.
HOW? In total, we recruited ten people, this
comes down to two respondents per persona. Each
experiment took about one hour. During this period,
the participant had to complete two scenarios: one
with the current interface and one with the new UI.
Via an observation form, each observer could focus
on the same factors and knew how to perceive
them precisely. The first aspect emphasises the user
friendliness of the menu: did the respondent need
any help to complete the task? Did he make a lot of
‘mistakes’? The second handles the user’s feelings.
We were able to measure this by presenting a Pick-
A-Mood (PAM) scale to the participant after each
assignment. Another tool that we could use in the
UGhent media lab were cameras positioned on both
the TV and participants.
We used a wide range of investigation methods, both quantitative and qualitative, to traverse each one of
these highways successfully. The intension is to mingle our findings, based on various research methods, into
one consistent story for each dimension. First of all, we make clear which investigation methods were used,
what they stand for, how we implemented them and the reason why we chose these particular ones.
The starting point of our whole research was the analysis of secondary data, this means the examination of
data which was already at hand. This data was provided by the Netflix, Shift TV and DigiMeter studies of iMinds.
We analysed these files profoundly in order to create personas, specific profiles, to recruit diverse participants
for our following research methods. We ended up with five different personas, which will be explained later in
the report. The other methods will be discussed per dimension to keep everything structured.
Methodology
4. 87
EMMA, MEDIA TRADITIONALIST
• 66 years old
• No other devices, except her television
• Still reads the newspaper and
gossip magazines
• Mostly watches live television
• Needs help with technology
• Opportunities:
• Clear structure
• Importance of privacy
LAURA, MEDIA ROOKIE
• 25 years old
• Her laptop is her main device
• Watches YouTube videos in her
spare time
• Doesn’t want to pay for media
• Smart TV has no advantages for
her yet
• Opportunities:
• Affordable media devices
PATRICK, DIGITAL ADEPT
• 44 years old
• Technologyforworkandentertainment
• Multiscreen usage
• Tablet is his main device
• Opportunities:
• Revising the remote control
• More application buttons
DAVID, DIGITAL OMNIVORE
• 29 years old
• Enough financial resources
• Plenty of media devices
• Likes discovering new technologies
• Watches both live and online television
• Opportunities:
• Design and reaction speed
TOM, MEDIA DEVOURER
• 24 years old
• Reads mobile newspaper
• New technologies are a surplus,
not a substitute
• Prefers paying a bit more for products
or services with better quality
• Watches both live and time shifted
television
• Opportunities:
• Profiles for each family member
• YouTube button
Once again, two moderators were appointed to
regulate the session and capture all the interesting
concepts.
WHY? We organised a co-creation session to be able
touncoverpotentialopportunitiesandfunctionalities
for TP Vision that could differentiate them from their
competitors. This research method allowed us to
focus on promising changes on both short and long
term in the Smart TV industry.
PRIVACY
We utilised a literature review to study the issue of
privacy in connection to Smart TVs. We opted for this
investigation method because a lot of information
about this privacy matter is already at hand. By means
of this review, we tried to get more knowledge about
the most influential trends, different forms of data
collection, user concerns…
On the other hand, we wanted to do tangible field
research on the privacy awareness and tipping points
of Smart TV consumers. To get this all-round view, we
integrated the aspect of privacy into every previously
discussed method.
VALIDATION SURVEY
To give substance to our results, mainly based on
qualitative techniques, we launched an online
validation survey to test these on a larger scale. More
specific, we verified the most fundamental findings
from our previously implemented methods with the
aid of this survey. In total, we were able to reach 517
participants in one week. The graph below displays
the partition between the different age classes.
We are aware of the fact that this sample is not
perfectly divided, but we countered this problem
by using weight coefficients. Consequently, we were
able to equally integrate every age class into our
analysis.
Toconcludeourresearchandmakecertainqualitative
findings even more tangible, we chose to create a
mock-up of the ‘ideal’ UI, based on our study. This
mock-up will be described later on.
65
312
34
40
40
26
14-‐19
20-‐29
30-‐39
40-‐49
50-‐59
60+
Respondents
devided
in
age
categories
2. Meet our personas
In order to give TP Vision a better idea of their customers we created five different personas. The purpose of
these personas is to support developers and marketers while creating a new design for a specific somebody,
rather than a ‘general everybody’. These personas are composed out of multiple resources. First we used
the data we received from iMinds (Netflix study, DigiMeter and Shift TV study). Afterwards we fuelled them
with additional information, from the lab and field tests, focus group, co-creation session and validation
survey. This report only contains the main characteristics of the personas, the detailed version is included
as appendix.
Meetourpersonas
5. 109
Another function of the TV guide in the current
UI is that the programme information appears on
the screen automatically after standing still a few
seconds on a specific TV show. Some participants
thought this was a good thing, others didn’t. Some
participants who wanted to read the programme
information, pushed the ‘OK’ button to do so, but
ended up zapping to the channel unwillingly.
Do changes imply improvement?
The new TV guide sure looks more modern and
different according to almost every respondent.
Nevertheless, it brought up several negative
reactions. Firstly, there is not much colour in the
new TV guide, the layout of the current UI was seen
as more appealing. Secondly, the dots and lines give
a more chaotic impression in the new TV guide, this
doesn’t really give a clear overview. It’s not always
obvious where you are positioned on the screen.
Another frustration occurred when navigating to
other channels while using the mini TV guide (which
appears at the bottom of the screen).
Our participants were confused about how to use
thisproperly,itwasnotclearhowtochangechannels
or record a television show. Something most people
regret in the new UI is the disappearance of the
colour code at the bottom of the TV guide. This
was an aspect some participants really wanted to
keep in the new interface because it made browsing
trough different days easier.
The perfect TV guide
The frustrations of the current UI aren’t solved in the
new one. On the contrary, the new UI is considered
not that pleasant to work with.
The TV guide needs to be very clear about the start
and ending time of a programme. A solution for this
could be a progress bar with time indication.
It should also be clear how to browse quickly
between different days of the week. In the current
UI, it seemed to work with the colour code. In the
new UI, there is no such function at all.
On screen programme information is observed to
be a good functionality. When the information is
provided automatically, it could be handy to show
this immediately to avoid irritations.
Favourite list
Not user’s favourite
“I fear that I won’t longer see the forest for the
trees” (Geert - Field test participant)
Users always have a preference for some channels,
so having the possibility to make a list of these
channels is a nice feature. Both in the lab and field
tests, users concluded that this feature is a very
useful addition to the UI. Unfortunately, this feature
has to deal with most of the struggles and irritations
due to the complicated process to create a favourite
list. In both old the old and new UI, the feature
seems hidden and requires too many steps.
A help function could maybe solve this problem.
However, nothing can be found through ‘help’.
Users can find an explanation about the favourite
list, through Settings - ‘channels’. However the
participants think this is an unusual way to get
instructions. Also the fact that there is nothing more
than just an explanation and no direct connection to
‘Favourites’ leads to annoyance. In a family context
this favourite list could use more personalisation.
Due to the fact that you can ‘only’ make three
favourite lists, large families can’t benefit from this.
Participants also complained about the remote
control that isn’t working logically while creating a
favourite list. Instead of pressing ‘OK’ to confirm,
they need to navigate with the arrows. Instead of
creating the list, they start watching the channel
they selected.
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING
SMART IN USE
The first of three lanes we will discuss is usability.
This chapter is further divided into five key functions
concerning Smart TVs: (1) watching TV, (2) TV
guide, (3) favourite list, (4) settings and (5) Smart
features. Each one of these aspects is linked with
the consumers’ delights and frustrations, visualised
by spider charts indicating their feelings on both the
current and the new menu. We mainly focus on the
frustrations of people, because this reveals what
TP Vision could improve on. We conclude this part
with recommendations focussing on how they could
progress. In addition, we took a closer look at the
ease of transition between the two interfaces. To
end with, we present some general remarks on the
usability of the UIs.
KEY CONCEPTS
Watching TV
Generally, the TV experience pleased most
participants. According to them, the television
screen shows programmes in magnificent HD quality.
The only frustration noticed during the viewing of
TV programmes is that the television doesn’t react
right away when handling the remote. For die-hard
‘channel surfers’, this should go faster. During the lab
experiment, some people accidentally ended up on
the wrong channel by typing a number twice due
to of the slow reaction speed. A device that doesn’t
work fast nowadays isn’t seen as useful or qualitative.
This frustration was present in both the current and
the new UI.
TV guide
One step forward, two steps back?
The current interface offers a TV guide that is
enjoyable to use. A lot of respondents were fond of
the specific layout. They liked the colours and images
that brighten up the programme information. In
addition, the TV guide seemed very recognisable to
the participants and easy to work with. Another good
thing is the colour code down the menu. This is very
helpful to browse quickly through different days of
the week using the colour buttons. Less attractive is,
once again, the reaction speed of the whole menu.
The television doesn’t react right away, which brings
impatience.
3. A closer look on usability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
calm
neutral
relaxed
tense
cheerful
irritated
sad
excited
Watching
TV
current
interface
new
interface
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
calm
neutral
relaxed
tense
cheerful
irritated
sad
excited
Favourite
list
current
interface
new
interface
0%
10%
20%
30%
calm
neutral
relaxed
tense
cheerful
irritated
sad
excited
TV
guide
current
interface
new
interface
10
Acloserlookonusability
6. 1211
Surfing the Internet is not always that obvious
“I think people mainly buy a TV to have a big and
wonderful screen. Nonetheless, you can easily
surf the internet on your tablet or smartphone,
so I don’t know if it’s still necessary to have this
possibility on your Smart TV.”
(Thomas - Lab test participant)
Some people encountered difficulties with surfing
the Internet. This is proven in our lab and field tests,
in here we noticed participants often got frustrated
when they were navigating in a certain website. A
solution for TP Vision could be to develop a track pad
in the remote that facilitates browsing. Generally,
people prefer to use their tablet or Smartphone to
look for additional information on the Internet.
How searching can be confusing
The search function caused confusion as well.
When doing the lab and field tests, participants
wanted to use this to search for apps, videos,
channels, websites,.. They were disappointed when
they realised the only purpose of this function is to
show videos as a search result, which was not clear
beforehand. Also the fact that the speech function
is set as the standard to search for a specific term,
seems odd. This should be an option, next to the
standardised textual search function.
Transition between current and new UI
When we look at the transition from current to
new UI, there are still some issues that need to be
solved in order to improve usability. This topic only
includes findings based on the lab tests where we
observed the short-term transition.
As it is now. A minority perceived this UI as easy
to use because of the similarities with their own
set-top-box at home. In general the current UI is
considered as less innovative in comparison to UIs
of other Smart TVs. The layout is basic and there
are not enough differentiators. Nevertheless, there
was not a general issue, some participants enjoyed
working with this UI, and others were slightly more
negative. As they started working with the UI during
the lab tests we noted some insecurities. Mostly
due to difficulties to search or install certain Smart
features. For some participants it was difficult to
follow the instructions without a manual.
“I’m kind of scared of everything that’s called
‘Smart’, because I don’t know anything about it.
What if I push the wrong button?”
(Sabine Dutry - Field test participant)
In the validation survey, we examined how the
first use of a Smart TV could be simplified to tackle
problems like these. The majority of respondents
preferred on screen messages (explaining stepwise
what to do), followed by paper manuals and (video)
tutorials.
Only a minority of participants indicated the help
of a technical expert and an online guide as an
interesting way to ease the first encounter with a
Smart TV.
In addition, our Digital Adept and Digital Omnivore
mostly pick tutorials and online guides. If the TV
doesn’t work as smooth as people are used to or
they can’t find what they are looking for, they reach
for their tablet or smartphone.
We conclude that a positive first user experience
starts with the choice between different kinds of
information sources.
As it will be. During the lab experiments, we were
able to test the transition between the current and
new UI. The biggest changes are the overall layout,
functioning and the TV guide. Although the changes
are not that spectacular, most participants could
pick out the right interface if we asked which one
was the new UI, because of its modern impression.
Here we found that most users generally prefer the
current interface over the new one, this is also due
to some general causes. Firstly, the current interface
corresponds much better with the interface they
are used to on their own television.
Favourite button
A separate button to get to ‘Favourites’ could reduce
dissatisfaction. And if the user is given the possibility
to select a channel in the TV guide and add it
immediately to the favourite list, it would shorten
the whole process. We can conclude the favourite
list is still not user friendly enough, in both current
and new UI. With some modifications the favourite
list would be more usable.
Settings
A big frustration all our participants encountered
while working with the television during the lab
and field experiment, is that they took a leap into
the unknown. “Which button do I have to press if I
want to reach the apps, internet,..?” This may have
been the most frequently asked question during our
experiments. This doesn’t apply for the ‘Settings’
option.
Everyparticipantcouldeasilyfindhiswayto‘Settings’,
because of the separated button in the shape of a
gear ( ). Although the different navigation paths
(via button or menu) don’t result in the same settings
menu, we can conclude this is considered convenient
to work with (in both UIs) and an overall user friendly
feature.
Smart features
Smart technologies provide Smart features
“Which one do I choose: Google Play Store,
Gamefree. TV, Google Play Games or App Gallery?
This is very confusing”
(Yanah - Field test participant)
The participants, who tested the TV for a longer
period, pointed out that the installation of a random
app can be ambiguous.
The difference between the app gallery and other
app icons is not clear to them, neither are the names
of the apps mentioned underneath their icon. We
often noticed respondents were pleased to have the
opportunity to integrate apps in their UI, but the
look and feel is still not user friendly enough. They
also reported that it would be useful if you get some
additional information about the apps, just like the
programmeinformationintheTVguide. Thein-depth
interviews of the field test generally showed that the
use of numerous Smart features was reduced to basic
online video content apps (e.g. Netflix, YouTube),
which implies a trend to non-linear TV behaviour.
Respondents were very cheerful about the individual
‘Netflix button’ on the remote control, especially our
Digital Adept. A suggestion made by the participants
was to integrate more of these ‘Smart’ buttons. In
addition, we found that people who don’t recognise
the application in the home screen, switch to the
web browser to reach their goal (e.g. YouTube app).
This involves an opportunity for TP Vision, aiming for
‘app-usability’. Generally, people are aware of the
advantages of Smart features but using them still
causes some irritations.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
calm
neutral
relaxed
tense
cheerful
irritated
sad
excited
Smart
features
current
interface
new
interface
12
Acloserlookonusability
0%
10%
20%
30%
calm
neutral
relaxed
tense
cheerful
irritated
sad
excited
Se#ngs
current
interface
new
interface
7. 1413
up screen. In this way, people are stimulated to test
some of these apps. The ‘TV watching’ app should
be the standard one (just one click away). The Netflix
button on the remote control is another example
of a straightforward function. Unfortunately, there
is a reverse side to the medal. Because of this
recognisability, users automatically go the Internet
app if they want to search for a video for example.
They will no longer use the specific app that is
available, because of the inefficient way of getting
to the apps (through ‘Home’).
● Last aspect in our ranking is the customisation of
the menu. This means that users want to be able to
integrate their own preferences in the menu.
“If I want to watch a video on my Smart TV, it takes
5 times the time in comparison if I would use my
laptop or smartphone. When I use the Smart TV, I
have to open a menu first, search for the app, open
the app,.. There must be an easier way.”
(Sander - Co-creation session participant)
Secondly, the new interface often suddenly stopped
working and was disrupted by some malfunctions.
We know that this was mainly caused by the fact
that it was only a prototype version of the interface.
Nevertheless, it did shape the opinion of our
participants in a way. To summarise these findings
we found that users didn’t receive the new interface
as more user-friendly in its current state.
On boarding. The on boarding menu that
automatically shows up when the transition is
executed, gives more explanation about the changes
in the new UI. In the validation survey, this on screen
message was chosen as most preferred tool to give
the user more information.
Certain participants experienced this menu as
practical to help with the transition, others found
it not interactive enough and therefore skipped the
explanation. Also it is not realistic to expect that the
user will remember the explanation after reading
it once. In theory people sincerely like on screen
messages, but in reality the majority skips them.
GENERAL REMARKS
We realise that in this report we put the main focus
of our research results on possible problems and
frustrations users experienced with the interface and
its different dimensions. We think these findings hold
a greater value for TP Vision because they uncover
the problem areas and point out possibilities for
improvement. We would like to clarify that this does
not imply both interfaces to be inconvenient.
The usability survey we conducted concerning the
current UI proves this statement. The majority of our
participants indicated that they were rather pleased
with the logical structure and ease of use. Opinions
about the user friendliness were a bit more divided,
but this was mainly due to the fact that lots of bugs
and malfunctions appeared with the test devices
we received, which would probably not occur under
normal circumstances. Still, only three out of nine
participants stated that they were not satisfied
with the user friendliness of their Philips Smart TV.
To conclude our survey, we asked our respondents
about the general satisfaction by taking every aspect
of the current interface into account. We found
that only one participant out of nine was really
discontent whereas the other eight respondents
were moderately satisfied with the interface. To get
to know which aspects are the most important for
a user-friendly interface, we questioned our findings
of the focus group, co-creation sessions and lab
experiments in the validation survey. They could
assess every item with a score from one to seven to
show us how important the different elements are
to them.
● The most valuable concept for consumers is
intuitive use, meaning consumers want to be
able to use a Smart TV efficiently without any
additional instructions.
● Second most important aspect is the rapidity of
use. An intermittent problem with the Philips Smart
TV is the fact that the television often responds too
slowly according to the user. We already mentioned
this is one of the biggest frustrations.
● Third aspect on the list is called few clicks; this
refers to the amount of steps they have to go through
to complete an action. Logically, people want to do
this in as few steps as possible (e.g. favourite list).
● Fourth, consumers want the interface to be
straightforward. It has to be clear which functions
are available from the moment they start the Smart
TV. In general, users do not like making the effort
of discovering this themselves. For example, some
people would like the ‘Home’ screen to be the start-
14
Acloserlookonusability
8. 1615
COMPATIBILITY IS KEY
As we have more devices than ever, multiscreening
is the new hype. Next to our TV, we mainly possess
a laptop (86,8%), a smartphone (78,2%), a tablet
(72,4%) and a desktop (54,9%). These devices could
create opportunities by connecting them wirelessly
with a Smart TV. Some functions already exist, but
there is always room for improvement.
Every device is connected with the Internet
nowadays and a Smart TV fits perfectly into the
Internet of Things. This compatibility could allow
consumers to transfer music from their TV to their
stereo more smoothly. Using the television as a
central screen to control home automation creates
opportunities to keep TV as a central part in the
user’s daily lives.
Critical note to mention here is the fact that we
found a negative relation2
between age and the
amount of devices. Concretely, this means that the
older people get, the less devices they possess and
the other way around.
What’s more, the amount of devices also correlates
positively3
with people’s level of tech savviness.
This means that the more consumers know about
technology, the more interested they are to buy
them. However, we cannot conclude that tech savvy
people are more likely to buy a Smart TV, based
on our data. There are multiple reasons to explain
this, because buying potential depends on several
factors such as age of their current television, the
ease of use, the advantage in comparison with
other devices and their budget.
2 Significant correlation coefficient of -0,33
3 Significant Correlation coefficient of 0,32
WHERE’S THE SMART REMOTE?
The traditional remote control hasn’t changed that
drastically since its invention in 1950. Ever since
the introduction of Smart TVs, people have had the
feeling the remote control is not adjusted to this
modern device. It’s clumsy, not intuitive and slow,
which causes a lot of frustration while working with
the Smart TV. Users have some suggestions to solve
this problem. First, they want to be able to change
their smartphone/tablet into a remote control.
Although this is already possible with some devices,
they find that there are more possibilities. Creating
a device with touchscreen that works like a remote
control is an appealing proposition. Managing
the TV by using gestures or your voice is another
valuable option.
“Television used to be a device to just look at,
you could pick a channel and maybe change the
brightness and volume. Now, with the introduction
of Smart TVs, there are way more possibilities.
The problem is that the traditional remote control
makes it difficult to work with.”
(Yoeri - Co-creation session participant)
LET’S GET PERSONAL
The modern user needs more personalisation. This
may not look like a very radical or futuristic idea, but
users emphasise this over and over again. Changing
personal settings should be only one click away. As
we stated before in the usability dimension, profiles
per family member could be an advantage for larger
families. These profiles can give users the possibility
to create their own favourite list, to record TV shows
and save customised settings. A Smart TV should
also subtly suggest programmes the user might like.
This suggestion system should in no way interrupt or
disturb the television experience. It’s crucial for users
to easily adjust the options for these suggestions.
This suggestion system is not only useful for the
individual consumer, but it’s also an extra source
of information for TP Vision itself (e.g. personal
advertising).
Another aspect linked to a more personal television
experience is ‘social networks’. Some users would
like to chat in real-time with their friends about
live programmes and share opinions through social
media. Nevertheless, social media aren’t always
considered as something positive, but this is mostly
age-related. Users would find it interesting to see
what their friends are watching, as an opportunity
to discover new programmes. Of course this is
only possible if they agree to share their viewing
behaviour.
“Thanks to apps like Foursquare or Untappd you
can see where your friends are or what they are
drinking. So why wouldn’t it be possible to see what
your friends are watching?” (Yoeri - Co-creation
session participant)
The participants also suggested the integration of a
webcam in the Smart TV. This webcam would be ideal
for Skype conversations and to share the television
experience with your friends. This could be a new
way of keeping the social function of television alive
in a society that’s becoming more individualised.
CHECK THIS OUT
Our participants had a few other remarkable ideas,
which could be interesting for TP Vision. Users
would appreciate a constant recording function,
where every programme that is broadcasted is being
recorded. This of course asks for hard drives with a
lot of capacity, but with Moore’s Law1
in mind this
might soon become a very real possibility. Hard
drives inside Smart televisions are crucial according
to the validation survey. Respondents ranked
‘internal storage capacity’ as most important in a list
with several Smart TV functions. Second placed is the
compatibility with other devices (cf. infra), followed
by the integration of a ‘favourite button’. Another
interesting suggestion is the creation of an app for
each television broadcaster. Many broadcasters
already have an online video service and even a
Smartphone app where you can consult and watch
their content.
1 Summarising: Moore’s law states that the computer
processing power will double every two years. Schaller, R. R.
(1997). Moore’s law: past, present and future. Spectrum,
IEEE,34(6), 52-59.
4. Creation: the Smart TV of the future
What would the Smart TV of the future look like? We organised both a focus group and co-creation session
to explore new opportunities for TP Vision. In the end we double checked these opportunities in the validation
survey, and later we have incorporated them into a deliverable; an inspiring mock-up.
78,2%
86,8%
54,9%
72,4%
Possession
of
other
devices
smartphone
laptop
desktop
tablet
16
Creation:theSmartTVofthefuture
9. 1817
LITERATURE REVIEW
Privacy Paradox
Consumers care more and more about privacy,
but are mostly not prepared to give up their
beloved smartphone or Facebook account to
preserve their personal information. This example
perfectly describes the privacy paradox. Consumers
know about (some of) the privacy issues they are
confronted with, but take no real action against
them. However, consumers will be bothered
whenever privacy and data collection reaches a
barrier they are not ready or willing to cross. We see
this as an opportunity for the Smart TV industry. In
order to keep their customers pleased, developers
will have to pay more attention to this aspect and
thoughtfully consider which information they really
need and for what purpose.
Privacy by design
Privacy by design includes taking the social context
of new devices and technologies into account.
During the design process, developers have to think
at all time about the user’s expectations for privacy
and the setting in which the Smart TV is being used6
.
Developers have to give considerable thought to
the question about how televisions function inside
homes. It is not possible to provide sustainable
privacy preserving methods without having these
considerations in mind during the whole production
process. Big Data security and privacy cannot be
seen as something to worry about only in the final
phase of production. It should be embedded in
each component of a system or technology7
. The
next paragraph describes three main domains that
developers should take into account to tackle users
privacy concerns.
6 Landau, S. (2015). What Was Samsung Thinking?. IEEE
Security & Privacy, (3), 3-4.
7 Jiang, X., Kambourakis, G. & Wang, H. (2015). Special issue
on Security, Privacy and Trust in network-based Big Data. In
Information Sciences, 318, 48-50.
IS THIS PRODUCT SALEABLE?
We just suggested some great ideas for the
development of a television in the near future.
In the validation survey, we questioned the
adoption potential of a Smart TV with the preferred
functionalities for each respondent individually.
We compared this to a standard Smart TV offer.
The graphic below shows the concrete adoption
percentages for each profile.
Important to take into account is that we found a
strong relation between the age of the television and
the adoption potential. Usually, people only consider
buying a new television after seven years4
.
This is the main reason for the rather low adoption
potential of Smart TVs. Users don’t feel the urge
to buy a Smart TV if their current TV still functions
normally. There is no significant correlation between
people’s age and their adoption potential5
.
WILD IDEAS ABOUT FUTURE TVS
During the co-creation session, we encouraged our
participants to think about the TV of the future.
In this section, we presented some of the most
innovative ideas our respondents came up with. The
main topics that emerged were television as a central
coordinator and TV as an educational tool.
4 Lawler, R. (2012). The incredible shrinking TV replacement
cycle [Blog post]. Retrieved November 30, 2013, from www.
gigaom.com/2012/01/05/tv-replacement-cycle/
5 A critical remark is the fact that we had great fluctuations in
the division of age. By consequence we had to weight our cases
to get representative results.
TV, the central coordinator in the
Internet of Things
Oursmartphoneandcomputerare‘personal’devices.
However, TV is often seen as a shared screen. Imagine
that central screen in the living room becoming a
powerful communication and organisational tool for
the whole family. Concretely, your television could
become a new form of domestic help, e.g. it could
display a summary of the appointments of all family
members. The TV might be connected to all home
appliances in the Internet of Things and possibly
become a control panel for home automation. The
screenwoulddisplayanoverviewofthetemperature,
electricity, etc. and could be able to compute how
eco-friendly the household is and how much energy
all devices are consuming.
Learning in front of the television?
The main function of television is entertainment.
Nevertheless, television can have an important role
in education and information. Language learning
through television and an encyclopaedia search tool
are interesting suggestions from our respondents.
In case of language learning, the TV could serve as an
assistant. It could check your speaking skills through
voice recognition and correct where needed.
An encyclopaedia search tool could help the user find
different matters on one subject e.g. searching on the
keyword ‘nature’ gives you related documentaries,
YouTube movies and Google Search results (all in
one).
1.20%
9.80%
6.50%
42.60%
39.90%
Innovators
Early
Adopters
Early
Majority
Late
Majority
Laggards
Adop1on
poten1al
5. Privacy from a SMART perspective
Privacy is a hot topic in the ever on-going debate about new technologies. Some consider privacy an out-
dated concept in today’s society while others plead for the preservation and control of as much private
information as possible. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The biggest difficulty is where
that thin line between preserving and giving up your, sometimes delicate, personal information has to be
drawn.
The arrival of the Internet of Things emphasises the importance of privacy in the digital world. What if
household appliances start gathering information about our actions and whereabouts? The Smart TV was
a first big step in the direction of the Internet of Things, so it would be very unwise to consider and create
new applications or technologies without taking privacy issues in consideration.
In this chapter we try to present some user insights about privacy linked to Smart TVs. It is nearly impossible
to draw a strict line between acceptable and non-acceptable breaches on privacy from a user perspective,
but we can give some insight in user concerns and how developers can deal with them. What kind of data
protection are users expecting and are they prepared to give up some private information in exchange for
a better user experience or some kind of incentives?
18
PrivacyfromaSMARTperspective
10. 2019
FINDINGS
Participant’s point of view?
The concepts and theories we discovered in our
literature review offer valuable information, but we
wanted to put these concepts into work with the
participants in the different aspects of our research.
We inserted questions about privacy issues in our
in-depth interview associated with the field test
and initiated a debate about privacy in our focus
group. Finally, we tried to confirm these findings on
a bigger scale in our validation survey.
Firstly,wemustmaketheremarkthatourparticipants
had a very pessimistic view on privacy, they don’t
really believe that companies try to secure private
information and some think the whole concept of
privacy is out-dated in this information society.
“I think it’s impossible to completely protect myself
against privacy issues, except maybe by deleting
myself on social media”
(Klaas - Field test participant)
Findings in the focus group were in line with the
privacy paradox. We showed the participants an
article about the Samsung scandal where Smart
TVs were eavesdropping on users with the speech
recognition system and asked about their thoughts
on this. We found that the participants are aware
that their data is being used, but they don’t know
what to do about it. A majority has the feeling
they can’t really protect their privacy the way they
want. In the validation survey, we interrogated 517
respondents. We found that participants are quiet
concerned about their privacy and that this is not
specifically linked with age, level of education or
tech savviness. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that
we found no significant connection between privacy
awareness and the adoption potential of Smart TVs.
“It’s frustrating because you can’t do anything
about it, you just get used to it”
(Axelle - Focus group participant)
When asked if they have problems with the fact that
their data is being used for a diversity of reasons,
answers in the focus group and in the interviews
align almost perfectly. Generally, we found that
most of the respondents have no problems with
companies having their personal data and viewing
habits logged to improve the product or to give
personal recommendations. We came to the same
conclusion in the validation survey where almost
¾ of the 517 participants agreed or took a neutral
point of view when asked if their data could be used
to improve the product or user experience. Only
restriction is that the data these companies store
about individuals is not too personal, such as photos
and private messages. However, respondents
definitely don’t want their data being used for
commercial purposes or to be sold to third parties.
Reasons participants give to explain this mostly
include the fact that they don’t want or need more
advertisements, want to avoid spam and don’t like
the thought of someone spying on them.
“I don’t want my data to be used for commercial
purposes. Third parties should not be permitted to
use my data without my approval, I don’t like the
thought of being spied on”
(Eline – Field test participant)
Then, the privacy calculus theory comes into play.
We asked respondents of the field test whether they
would be prepared to provide more personal data
in exchange for free services and features. With this
addition, we found that every single respondent
we interviewed would we willing to deliver data
and viewing habits when they receive some of the
benefits in return. But even with the addition of
these user advantages, most respondents are still
not inclined to disclose personal information with
the knowledge that this data will be sold for purely
commercial purposes. In the validation survey, we
found that more than 4/5 of the respondents would
not want their data to be sold to third parties and
almost 60% would still not allow this when they
receive free services in return. We conclude that
data being sold to third parties can be considered
as the tipping point where users are not willing to
go yet.
“I am prepared to provide certain information to
developers if they can improve the product and
viewing experience, but only when I receive some
benefits in return such as free applications or credit
for the Google store… “
(Seamus – Field test participant)
Tackling privacy concerns
1. Control
With the emergence of Smart TVs, consumers are
feelinglessandlessincontroloftheirtelevision.Users
can often no longer choose the level of interaction
they wish to engage with their TV and do not always
have the choice to indicate whether their private
data can be used for different purposes8
. People get
very suspicious when they realise which and how
much information about them is collected and used
for personal advertising and other objectives. Users
have less complaints about privacy when they feel
that they are in control over their data stream9
.
2. Transparency
According to many industry experts, companies and
vendors have to be as transparent as possible about
the data they gather from users. Users will be less
concerned when companies let them know what
they will do exactly with their information instead of
constantly changing the terms and conditions of their
privacy policy10
. User consent acquisition should be
very clear and to the point, which was confirmed in
the co-creation session. Developers should develop
technologies that request consent from users in an
efficient and more effective way11
.
3. Trust
Smart TV users do not feel completely secure when
they have to perform a payment through the TV.
This is mainly due to the social context in which this
medium is frequently used. First of all, people do not
want others to see what products they would like to
buy. Another issue is that users are afraid that other
people could see or hear their payment details.
8 Potonniée, O. (2004, March). A decentralized privacy-enabling
TV personalization framework. In European Conference on
Interactive Television: Enhancing the Experience (euroITV). &
Tsekleves, E., Whitham, R., Kondo, K., & Hill, A. (2013).
Investigating pay-as-you-go to address issues of trust, privacy
and security around media use at home. Universal access in the
information society, 12(2), 217-231.
9 Potonniée, O. (2004, March). A decentralized privacy-enabling
TV personalization framework. In European Conference on
Interactive Television: Enhancing the Experience (euroITV).
10 Ring, T. (2015, June). Keeping tabs on tracking technology. In
Network security. (6), 5-8.
11 Khan, U., Perera, C., Ranjan, R., Wang, L. & Zomaya, A. (2015,
May/June). Big data privacy in the internet of things era. In IEEE
Computer Society. 17(3), 32-39.
People also are afraid that additional costs will be
charged without their knowledge when using typical
functions such as online shopping or televoting. This
explains why a part of the consumers do not make
use of these interactive media services12
. To feel
safe, users want to be absolutely sure that personal
information is only used for the services they request
themselves13
. To guarantee this safety, trust needs to
be established between the provider and the user of
a service or application.
Privacy Calculus Theory
The barrier consumers are willing to cross correlates
with the benefits they gain from giving access to
personal information. This concept is called the
‘Privacy Calculus Theory’ and delivers extremely
useful insights in consumer behaviour. When
users are asked to give up some privacy they will
compare perceived risks and anticipated benefits14
.
For instance, Facebook subscribers might know
their private data is being used by the company to,
among other things, deliver targeted advertising but
the benefits of being connected with their friends
greatly outweighs this drawback. Looking back at
the privacy paradox, we can state that users will be
less prone to take action against privacy issues when
the return is big enough. This return can take the
form of monetary advantages such as discounts or
free applications but could as well deliver benefits in
terms of control, transparency or trust.
12 Tsekleves, E., Whitham, R., Kondo, K., & Hill, A. (2013).
Investigating pay-as-you-go to address issues of trust, privacy
and security around media use at home. Universal access in the
information society, 12(2), 217-231.
13 Potonniée, O. (2004, March). A decentralized privacy-
enablingTVpersonalizationframework.InEuropeanConference
on Interactive Television: Enhancing the Experience (euroITV).
14 Li, H., Sarathy, R. & Xu, H. (2010). Understanding situational
online information disclosure as a privacy calculus. In Journal of
computer information systems.
20
PrivacyfromaSMARTperspective
11. 2221
A choice in data
We started a debate within the focus group and tried
to discover some possible solutions to counter these
privacyissues statedabove.Participantsunanimously
agreed that users should be given the choice: how
much and which data do they want to hand over?
They do not want to be forced to do this by denying
access when they refuse to sign privacy policies.
Users want the possibility to choose in detail which
data they provide, and before they give access they
want to know for which purpose a certain application
needs this personal information.
Simpler privacy policies
For many participants, privacy policies are a major
issue. They know that the information consisted in
these policies is very important but still most users
just sign these without taking the time to read
them thoroughly. Participants agreed on the fact
that privacy policies should be simpler, shorter and
clearer. Next to a long version, a shorter version
should be available which sums up the most essential
and disruptive information.
“I would like to get the choice with whom and which
data I share” (Ann – Field test participant)
Different profiles
A final issue cited by some respondents deals with
privacy in the personal sphere of the family. Users
don’t like the fact that recommendations and related
videos (for example on YouTube) can be seen by other
family members or friends when they are using the
television. To counter this issue, respondents think
it should be possible for every user to create his or
her own profile, as is the case with computers. This
way, each family member would have his or her own
account with recommendations and advertisements
basedontheirowntaste.Whenviewingthetelevision
together with others, a family account could be used
where every member of the family has access.
“User profiles on the Smart TV (like on the
computer) would be welcome. Every user should
have his or her profile and account” (Eline – Field
test participant)
ADVICE
Out of all these findings, we see a few opportunities
for TP Vision to take a leading position concerning
privacy in the Smart TV market. It should be clear
that users are way more prepared to give access
to personal information when they gain some
advantages out of this themselves. We are convinced
that these benefits should not necessarily entail
a monetary incentive such as free store credits or
applications, they could also be diverted from the
three dimensions we discussed in the literature
review. Firstly, make sure users gain the feeling that
they are in control of their own data stream and
interaction level with the Smart TV. Secondly, be
transparent about the data you want to receive and
for which purposes you need this from the customer.
Finally, trust must be created by taking control and
transparency in account during the whole production
process. When you succeed in creating a bond of
trust between a customer and the company, they will
be much more inclined to provide sufficient personal
information then when you offer them a one-time
monetary incentive.
Bottom line, we believe that keeping users up to date
at all time about privacy matters is the best road to
take in the long run. When you inform customers
about new innovations to come and give them a
good reason why you need some of their personal
data to be able to accomplish this, they will not only
give access to more personal data but will often
become a trusted and following customer of your
brand. Participants of our research said that they
don’t know what to do about privacy issues, so give
them the feeling they are doing something about it
by possessing a Philips Smart TV.
6. Inspiring mock-up
After gathering all opportunities and malfunctions
described in each dimension, we created a mock-
up that could serve as a paper prototype of a new
- improved - UI. The main aspect that shaped this
UI is the use of individual profiles. When the user
holds his finger on the power button for less than
one second, the fingerprint recognition technology
on the remote control will address the Smart TV
to display the user’s personalised UI. When it’s an
unrecognised fingerprint, the Smart TV gives the
possibility to add a new profile. In case of pressing
the button, without holding the finger down for
the fingerprint recognition, the Smart TV will start
in ‘neutral mode’. Along with the simplicity aspect
of the power button (no password needed), the
availability of creating profiles satisfies the double
need of personalisation and data protection/
privacy. Users get the feeling they’re in control of
their own data and interaction level, which creates
trust like declared in the Privacy chapter above.
Each profile can be customised with an individual
recommendation function (accessible at creation
and in the settings menu), based on favourable
movie genres, frequently watched TV shows or
viewing rates. This is clarified in the ‘profile creation’
wireframe below. At the bottom left corner there is
even a short version of the privacy policy presented
in bullet points, which was suggested in the co-
creation session and confirmed by the literature
review (cf. supra).
Inspiringmock-up
12. 2423
(3) Optionally, a recommendation can be shown as a
reminder when a TV show is starting with numerous
similarities with the user’s interests. Standard, this
option is not activated, but easily found in the
settings menu. Expectation is that a more tech savvy
user (e.g. Digital Adept, Digital Omnivore) will adopt
this tool for exploring new TV shows.
(4) Another personalised item is an individual
favourite list for each profile, which has to be
accessible with a separate button on the remote
control.
Keep in mind that this mock-up is only a simplistic
version to transfer the idea, and not a fully
developed UI.
(1) The saved recommendation options are shown
in the TV guide with temperature scale labels. The
more a TV show suits the user’s chosen options, the
warmer the colour of the label. The yellow TV show
blocks indicate recorded TV shows. There is also an
indication of the current “cursor” position to simplify
the whole navigating process and eliminate some of
the user’s frustrations (cf. Usability). In addition to
meet these frustrations, the TV show information
is placed on top of the screen. When navigating to
other shows, the information changes on the spot.
Another ‘update’ to this UI is the opacity of the
background; live television will not be interrupted
when consulting the TV guide (image, nor sound).
(2) When consulting the menu, there’s also room for
personalisation in the form of widgets. For example
sticky notes, weather report, photo albums, or social
network news flashes. This last widget option is in
addition to the need of more socialised UI. The menu
is again placed as a transparent top layer above the
currentview.Whenadjustingtheimageinthesettings
menu for example, the changes are translated live on
the screen.
1
2
3
4
Inspiringmock-up
13. 2625
There are plenty of opportunities for TP Vision and
other Smart TV producers to improve the complete
TV experience of their users. In this report, we took
a closer look on these chances and the importance
of being innovative. In a world ruled by innovation,
every manufacturer has to be progressive in order to
be successful. Keeping this in mind, we present the
following conclusions.
KEEP. IT. SIMPLE.
In general, we believe that TP Vision is already doing
well concerning the usability of the UI. Nevertheless,
from a critical point of view, we focused on ways to
improve the interface even more. Some features
just aren’t that straightforward or easy to find. The
key problems are the complexity of the UI, more
concretely the amount of clicks needed to perform
actions, and the slow responsiveness between
consumer and device. Speaking of a user-friendly
interface, the majority wants intuitive, fast and
customisable Smart TVs.
Our research brought up that people are mostly
interested in on screen messages, paper manuals
or tutorials to assist them during the first encounter
with their new television. It should be clear from the
beginning which features the interface has to offer.
The use of these applications has to be very simple,
without the need for any additional instructions.
THINK AHEAD... WAY AHEAD
We brainstormed about plans that go far into the
future. Crazy ideas that seem impossible right
now, might turn out to be possible at some point.
Users today want to be connected with all their
devices and all their friends and we discovered
that there are great opportunities for Smart TVs in
this direction. When doing the focus group and co-
creation session, we heard a lot of innovative ideas.
Users emphasize the importance of personalisation
and social networks. They want to make their Smart
TV social and personal in as many ways as possible.
Users want to experiment with incorporated social
media, webcams, Smart remotes, constant recording
functions, etc.
Nowadays, the Internet of Things is very popular in
the world of Smart technologies and by consequence
compatibility is key. If the Smart TV can add up to
the list of devices that are always connected, like
smartphones and tablets, then Smart functions
would be used more often. These are all aspects
to keep in mind when thinking about the future of
television.
TRUST IS KEY
We discovered that the privacy paradox is very much
alive, people do care about their privacy but are not
able or willing to put a lot of effort into the matter. In
all our research methods, we found that users have
little problem with their data or viewing habits being
used to improve the product or user experience. On
the contrary, our participants did not want to give
access to private information when this is used for
purely commercial purposes. Here we can draw the
line where most users refuse to hand out their data
on a free basis. We found that user benefits in the
form of free services or applications could change
the opinion on this matter only a little bit. We think
that companies should rather improve or create a
bond of trust with its customers to convince them to
hand out private information with the full knowledge
of doing so.
7. Overall conclusion
Overallconclusion
