Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Uncovering the Underlying Factors of Smart TV UX over Time

2016, Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video

https://doi.org/10.1145/2932206.2932207

Abstract

The objective of this research is to explore and identify Smart TV user experience (UX) factors over different time periods employing multiple methods so as to overcome the weakness of a single study approach. To identify the effect of contextual dimensions on the Smart TV UX, we conducted empirical studies exploiting different methods of think-aloud and diary method under two usage conditions: laboratory and real-life in the participants' residence. The factors identified through each study were integrated into a single set and further refined through peer review resulting in a final set of 19 UX factors. Metrics for these 19 UX factors were generated and used in an online survey, in which over 300 Smart TV users participated. The empirical evidences from each study suggest that the UX factors vary with respect to product temporality. The findings indicate practical implications for Smart TV manufacturers, marketing managers, application developers, and service providers.

References (34)

  1. Agarwal, A., and Meyer, A. 2009. Beyond usability: evaluating emotional response as an integral part of the user experience. In Proc. 27th Int. Conf. Ext. Abstr. Hum. factors Comput. Syst. -CHI EA '09. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 2919-2930.
  2. Alba, J., and Chattopadhyay, A. 1986. Salience effects in brand recall. J. Mark. Res. 23, 4 (1986), 363-369.
  3. Alben, L. 1996. Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions 3, 3 (1996), 11-15.
  4. Bargas-Avila, J., and Hornbaek, K. 2011. Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. Proc. 29th Int. Conf. Hum. factors Comput. Syst. -CHI 11 (2011), 2689-2698.
  5. Batavia, A.I., and Hammer, G.S. 1990. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 27, 4 (1990), 425-436.
  6. Beerends, J.G., and De Caluwe, F.E. 1999. The influence of video quality on perceived audio quality and vice versa. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 47, 5 (1999), 355-362.
  7. Bettman, J.R., and Sujan, M. 1987. Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. J. Consum. Res. 14, 2 (1987), 141.
  8. Cao, M., Zhang, Q., and Seydel, J. 2005. B2C e-commerce web site quality: an empirical examination. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 105, 5 (2005), 645-661.
  9. Consolvo, S., and Walker, M. 2003. Using the experience sampling method to evaluate ubicomp applications. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2, 2 (2003), 24-31.
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Kubey, R. 1981. Television and the rest of life : A systematic comparison of subjective experience. Public Opin. Q. 45, 3 (1981), 317-328.
  11. Cyr, D., Head, M., and Ivanov, A. 2006. Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce. Inf. Manag. 43, 8 (2006), 950-963.
  12. Davis, F. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 3 (1989), 319-340.
  13. Desmet, P., and Hekkert, P. 2007. Framework of product experience. Int. J. Des. 1, 1 (2007), 57-66.
  14. Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., and Gurrea, R. 2006. The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Inf. Manag. 43, 1 (2006), 1-14.
  15. Hassenzahl, M., and Tractinsky, N. 2006. User experience -a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25, 2 (2006), 91-97.
  16. Heerink, M. and Kröse, B., Evers, V., and Wielinga, B. 2010. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 4 (2010), 361-375.
  17. Hess, J., Ley, B., Ogonowski, C., Wan, L., and Wulf, V. 2012. Understanding and supporting cross-platform usage in the living room. Entertain. Comput. 3, 2 (2012), 37-47.
  18. Holz, C., Bentley, F., Church, K., and Patel, M. 2015. "I'm just on my phone and they're watching TV": Quantifying mobile device use while watching television. In TVX '15. 93-102.
  19. Jokela, T., Ojala, J., and Olsson, T. 2015. A Diary Study on Combining Multiple Information Devices in Everyday Activities and Tasks. In Proc. 33rd Annu. ACM Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. -CHI '15. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 3903-3912.
  20. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Martens, J.-B. 2009. User experience over time: An initial framework. In Proc. 27th Int. Conf. Hum. factors Comput. Syst. -CHI 09. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 729-738.
  21. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Martens, J.-B. 2010. Measuring the dynamics of remembered experience over time. Interact. Comput. 22, 5 (2010), 328-335.
  22. Kujala, S., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila,K., Karapanos, E., and Sinnelä, A. 2011. UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interact. Comput. 23, 5 (2011), 473-483.
  23. Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M., and Deng, W.J. 2009. The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Comput. Human Behav. 25, 4 (2009), 887-896.
  24. Law, E.L.-C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., and Kort, J. 2009. Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: A survey approach. In Proc. 27th Int. Conf. Hum. factors Comput. Syst. -CHI 09. ACM Press, 719-728.
  25. Lin, H.X., Choong, Y.-Y., and Salvendy, G. 1997. A proposed index of usability: A method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems. Behav. Inf. Technol. 16, 4-5 (1997), 267-277.
  26. McCarthy, J., and Wright, P. 2004. Technology as experience. Interactions 11, 5 (2004), 42-43.
  27. Meulen, R., and Pettey, C. 2012. Gartner Says 85 Percent of All Flat-Panel TVs Will Be Internet-Connected Smart TVs by 2016. (2012). http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2280617.
  28. Nidumolu, S.R. and Knotts, G.W. 1998. The effects of customizability and reusability on perceived process and competitive performance of software firms. MIS Q. 22, 2 (1998), 105-137.
  29. Nielsen, J., Clemmensen, T., and Yssing, C. 2002. Getting access to what goes on in people's heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique. In Proc. Second Nord. Conf. Human-computer Interact. -Nord. '02. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 101-110.
  30. Quiring, O. and Schweiger, W. 2008. Interactivity: a review of the concept and a framework for analysis. Communications 33, 2 (2008), 147-167.
  31. Rosenblatt, C.P., and Cunningham, R.M. 1976. Television Watching and Family Tensions. Marriage Fam. 38, 1 (1976), 105-111.
  32. Roto, V., Law, E., Vermeeren, A., and Hoonhout, J. 2010. User experience white Paper: bringing clarity to the concept of user experience. Dagstuhl Semin. Demarcating User Exp. (2010), 12.
  33. Shin, D.-H., Hwang, Y., and Choo, H. 2013. Smart TV: are they really smart in interacting with people? Understanding the interactivity of Korean Smart TV. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32, 2 (2013), 156-172.
  34. Venkatesh, V. 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11, 4 (2000), 342-365.