skip to main content
10.1145/3077548.3077557acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimxConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Best Paper

On Time or Not on Time: A User Study on Delays in a Synchronised Companion-Screen Experience

Published:14 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

One major challenge in creation of compelling companion screen experiences, are the time delays between the presentation of content on the TV compared to the presentation of content on the companion screen. Through the use of a synchronised, interactive textbook application, we conducted a user study to evaluate the potential influence of different delays, between the TV and the companion screen, on how users experience watching a Shakespearean play on the TV. Our results indicate that although users do not notice delays of up to 1000 ms, for the kind of experience tested, they feel significantly more distracted by the tablet content for increasingly higher delays. We discuss the implications of our findings with regards to the time delay tolerances users might have when using a synchronised text accompaniment to these kinds of TV programmes.

References

  1. Mike Armstrong. 2013. The Development of a Methodology to Evaluate the Perceived Quality of Live TV Subtitles. White Paper WHP 259. British Broadcasting Cooperation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ingar M. Arntzen, Njål T. Borch, and Christopher P. Needham. 2013. The media state vector: a unifying concept for multi-device media navigation. In MoVid '13 Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Mobile Video. 61--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. A. Bailey. 2008. Design of Comparative Experiments. Cambridge University Press, Chapter Row-column designs, 105--116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. British Broadcasting Cooperation. 2016. Richard II. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03rr1v1. (2016). Online; accessed: 2016-08-27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Burnham, J. Robert-Ribes,, and R. Ellison. 1998. Why captions have to be on time. In Audio-visual speach processing. 153--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) 2015a. ETSI TS 102 796 V1.3.1 / HbbTV 2.0 -- Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV . European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) 2015b. ETSI TS 103 286-1 -- Companion Screens and Streams; Part 1: Concepts, roles and overall architecture (DVB BlueBook A167--1 ed.). European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) 2015c. ETSI TS 103 286-2 -- Companion Screens and Streams; Part 2: Content Identification and Media Synchronization (DVB BlueBook A167--2 ed.). European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kraig Finstad. 2010. Response Interpolation and Scale Sensitivity: Evidence Against 5-Point Scales. Journal of Usability Studies 5, 3 (2010), 104--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. David Geerts, Ishan Vaishnavi, Rufael Mekuria, Oskar van Deventer, and Pablo Cesar. 2011. Are we in Sync? Synchronization Requirements for Watching Online Video Together. In CHI '11 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 311--314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Leandro Gomes, Pedro Cano, Emilia Gomez, Madeleine Bonnet, and Eloi Batlle. 2003. Audio Watermarking and Fingerprinting: For Which Applications? Journal of New Music Research 32, 1 (2003), 65--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Matt Hammond. 2016. Python DVB Companion Screen Synchronisation protocol library. https://github.com/BBC/pydvbcss. (2016). Online; accessed: 2016-08-08.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Matt Hammond and Jerry Kramskoy. 2016. DVB companion synchronisation timing accuracy measurement. https://github.com/bbc/dvbcss-synctiming. (2016). Online; accessed: 2016-08--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nielsen Holdings. 2011. In the U.S., tablets are TV buddies while eReaders make great bedfellows. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2011/in_the-u-s-tablets-are-tv-buddies-while-ereaders-make_great-bedfellows.html. (2011). Online; accessed: 2016-09-02.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2010. ISO 9241-210:2010: Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 2014. RFC 7272 -- Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) Using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) (Request for Comments 7272 ed.). Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ichiro Maruyama, Yoshiharu Abe, Eiji Sawamura, Tetsuo Mitsuhashi, Terumasa Ehara, and Katsuhiko Shirai. 1999. Cognitive experiments on timing lag for superimposing closed captions. In Sixth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. 575--578.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sebastian Moeller and Alexander Raake. 2014. Quality of Experience -- Advanced Concepts, Applications and Methods. Springer, Chapter Quality and Quality of Experience, 11--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mario Montagud, Fernando Boronat, Hans Stokking, and Ray van Brandenburg. 2012. Inter-destination multimedia synchronization: schemes, use cases and standardization. Multimedia Systems 18, 6 (2012), 459--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mu Mu, Steven Simpson, Hans Stokking, and Nicholas Race. 2016. QoE-aware Inter-stream Synchronization in Open N-Screens Cloud. In 13th Annual IEEE Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (IEEE CCNC). 907--915.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Niall Murray, Yuansong Qiao, Brian Lee, A. K. Karunakar, and Gabriel-Miro Muntean. 2013. Subjective evaluation of olfactory and visual media synchronization. In 4th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys '13). 162--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Timothy Neate, Michael Evans, and Matt Jones. 2016. Designing Visual Complexity for Dual-screen Media. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, 475--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Timothy Neate, Matt Jones, and Michael Evans. 2015. Mediating Attention for Second Screen Companion Content. In CHI '15 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3103--3106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ofcom. 2016. Communications Market Report 2016. https://www.ofcom.org.uk__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/ 26826/cmr_uk_2016.pdf. (2016). Online; accessed: 2017-03-28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Red Bee Media Ltd. 2012. Broadcast industry not capitalising on rise of the second screen. http://www.redbeemedia.com/sites/all/files/downloads/ secondscreenresearch.pdf. (2012). Online; accessed: 2013-07-15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ralf Steinmetz. 1996. Human perception of jitter and media synchronization. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 14, 1 (1 1996), 61--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Vinoba Vinayagamoorthy, Matt Hammond, Penelope Allen, and Michael Evans. 2012. Researching the User Experience for Connected TV -- A Case Study. In CHI EA Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 589--604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Vinoba Vinayagamoorthy, Rajiv Ramdhany, and Matt Hammond. 2016. Enabling Frame-Accurate Synchronised Companion Screen Experiences. In TVX '16 Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video. 83--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Yuan, M. Liberman, and C. Cieri. 2006. Towards an integrated understanding of speaking rate in conversation. In Interspeech 2006. 541--544.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. On Time or Not on Time: A User Study on Delays in a Synchronised Companion-Screen Experience

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      TVX '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video
      June 2017
      152 pages
      ISBN:9781450345293
      DOI:10.1145/3077548

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 June 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      TVX '17 Paper Acceptance Rate13of41submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate69of245submissions,28%

      Upcoming Conference

      IMX '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader