Understanding Requirements and Presenting Visual Guidelines for Social TV - Universitetet i Bergen
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Understanding Requirements and
Presenting Visual Guidelines for
Social TV
Taume Dery
This thesis is submitted to the Department of Information Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Information Science.
September 2020
The Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bergen
ii
Acknowledgments
I am incredibly thankful for the support, encouragement, and motivation of the people who
have helped me make this master thesis and research project happen. A special thanks go to:
My supervisor Yavuz Inal for his guidance, encouragement, and support throughout this thesis.
TV2-Sumo for their financial support with special thanks to Eva Husby and Marius Seim for
all the feedback and support throughout the study
Jonas Eilertson, an invaluable asset in helping me organize the field study and communicating
with participants throughout the study.
My friends and fellow students in room 638 for their positive influence, motivation, and
amazing company.
My father, brother, and Florian Schneider for proofreading the thesis.
My family, whose support kept me going in the bad days as well as the good ones.
Lastly, I would like to thank all the participants that took part in the study. If not for their
willingness to take part in this study, there would be no thesis.
iii
Abstract
"Social TV" is a concept that unionizes social media and television and is the idea of connecting
people through viewing media content and simultaneously interacting in a single platform. This
concept has experienced a surge in popularity due to the circumstances created by the COVID-
19 pandemic. Knowledge gained in this study determined the potential, established
requirements, and presented guidelines for Social TV services.
This study was conducted before the pandemic and explored Social TV by testing three
applications with different approaches to the concept. A three-week field study was conducted
utilizing interviews, user diaries, and questionnaires as supplementary methods.
The study revealed genre, platform, and the feeling of co-presence as factors that play a
significant role in user experience. The visual guidelines in the prototype further visualized these
insights giving a clear overview of elements that could support designers and evaluators seeking
to implement or further explore the concept.
iv
Table of content
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Social TV Definition ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Dual Information Processing ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 User Experience in Social TV ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Interaction method ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.2 Genre ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Co-Presence ................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Second Screen ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Social TV Applications .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.6 User Experience and Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 11
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Stage One and Two: Field Study Implementation ..................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Field Study ........................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.2 Procedure ............................................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.3 Participants .......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.4 Measures .............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1.5 Social TV Platforms............................................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Stage Three: Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.1 Quantitative Data ................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.2 Qualitative Data .................................................................................................................................. 24
3.3 Stage Four: Visual Guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Prototyping .......................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Design Tool.......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.3 Design Principles.................................................................................................................................. 25
Results ................................................................................................................................................ 26
4.1 Interaction Method...................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.1 Individual Interaction Methods ........................................................................................................... 27
v
4.2 Social TV Experience .................................................................................................................................. 30
4.2.1 Genre ................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.2 Room Capacity .................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Satisfaction of a Session ....................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Social TV - The Concept ............................................................................................................................ 35
4.3.1 Time Slot ............................................................................................................................................. 35
4.3.2 Platforms .............................................................................................................................................. 36
4.3.3 Second Screen vs. Social TV ............................................................................................................... 37
4.3.4 The Concept ........................................................................................................................................ 37
4.4 User Interface .............................................................................................................................................. 39
4.4.1 User Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 39
4.4.2 Brainstorming ...................................................................................................................................... 41
4.5 Visual Guidelines ......................................................................................................................................... 43
4.5.1 Home Page .......................................................................................................................................... 44
4.5.2 Group Profile ....................................................................................................................................... 44
4.5.3 Community Platform ........................................................................................................................... 46
4.5.4 “Room” Platform................................................................................................................................. 47
4.5.5 STE Rooms ......................................................................................................................................... 47
Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 49
5.1. What are the user requirements of a Social TV service?............................................................................ 49
5.1.1 Screen Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 49
5.1.2 Patterns ................................................................................................................................................ 50
5.1.3 Interaction Method .............................................................................................................................. 50
5.1.4 User Interface ...................................................................................................................................... 50
5.2 What elements should a Social TV service have to accommodate users' needs and requirements?........... 51
5.3. How does information gained in the study impact the viability of Social TV as a concept? ..................... 53
5.3.1 Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 53
5.3.2 Co-Presence ......................................................................................................................................... 53
5.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 55
6.1 Future work ................................................................................................................................................. 55
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 56
vi
List of figures Figure 3.1: An Overview of the Study Workflow....................................................................... 12 Figure 3.2: Visualization of Purposive Sampling ....................................................................... 14 Figure 3.3: Central Pages in Rave ......................................................................................... 21 Figure 3.4: Central Pages in Airtime ......................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.5: Central Pages in PlayNow ....................................................................................... 23 Figure 4.1: Weekly Diary – Usefulness of Interacting while Viewing Video Content ............... 26 Figure 4.2: Session Diary – Genre Registered ........................................................................... 31 Figure 4.3: Starting Time Slot of Registered Sessions ............................................................... 35 Figure 4.4: Home Page .............................................................................................................. 44 Figure 4.5: Group profile ........................................................................................................... 45 Figure 4.6: Community Platform ............................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.7: Room Page .............................................................................................................. 47 Figure 4.8: Video Chat STE ..................................................................................................... 48 Figure 4.9: Audio Chat STE ..................................................................................................... 48 Figure 4.10: Text Chat STE ..................................................................................................... 48 List of tables Table 3.1: Group Division based on the Sample of Participants .............................................. 16 Table 3.2: Demographic Data of Participants ........................................................................... 17 Table 3.3: Comparisons of the Features in the Applications..................................................... 20 Table 4.1: Session Diary – Self reported interaction method used ........................................... 27 Table 4.2: Average Satisfaction Scores for each Week.............................................................. 33 Table 4.3: Average Scores of Categories and Sales for each Platform Registered in the QUIS Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................... 40 Table 5.1: Summary of Guidelines ............................................................................................ 51
Abbreviations STE – Social TV Experience PP – PlayNow Participant RP – Rave Participant AP – Airtime Participant
Chapter 1
Introduction
Most people enjoy the company of others when viewing media content; however, a variety of
circumstances can make it a challenge to physically be with others. In the past few years,
advancements in technology have made it possible to replicate the feeling of togetherness from
a distance. Services and applications in this avenue aim to offer a shared viewing experience
designed to give a feeling of co-presence and togetherness between users in small groups. In
practice, these services become a medium with which viewers interact with each other while
viewing, without needing a third-party application like Skype, Facetime, or Zoom.
Since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic forced many people into isolation, services implementing
Social TV have been adopted by larger populations. However, even though the surge in
implementation is recent, the concept has been studied for quite a while. Literature on the
concept started to surface in the mid-2000s with the expression "Social TV" and unionizes
television and social media (Geerts & De Grooff, 2009). There are numerous articles with a
conceptual approach focusing on the user interface and user experience requirements of such
an application. However, they are mostly based on usability tests of prototypes in a controlled
environments for a short period (Buchner, 2014; Mekuria, van Deventer, Cesar, Vaishnavi, &
Geerts, 2011).
Conversely, given the fact that the concept is relatively new, there are some shortages in the
literature. First, there is a lack of understanding on how and why consumers use Social TV
services. Second, most research on the concept is outdated in regard to advancements in
technology since the inception of Social TV, such as platform, interaction methods, and other
aspects. Third, as there were no commercially successful Social TV services before the
pandemic, studies focused on determining the user experience of isolated prototypes but rarely
discussed the viability of the concept as a whole.
1
The aim of this study is, therefore, to fill these gaps by presenting visual guidelines for Social
TV services through conducting a three-week field study to understand users’ needs and
requirements. Furthermore, the thesis will discover particular user interface features that are
specifically suited for the concept. A low-fidelity prototype is presented together with visual
guidelines based on the information gained during the study.
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What are the user requirements of a Social TV service?
2. What elements should a Social TV service have to accommodate users' needs and
requirements?
3. How does the information gained in this study impact the viability of Social TV as a
concept?
2Chapter 2
Literature Review
This chapter presents the relevant subjects covered in this master thesis. It starts by exploring
the term Social TV and how the definition has expanded and evolved. The subsequent sections
explore different aspects and factors addressed in studies related to the concept. The last section
discusses the relevance of user experience.
2.1 Social TV Definition
The term Social TV is a combination of the words; television and social media. The concept
started to take hold in the middle of the 2000s with the expression "Social TV." The phrase was
used to introduce a so-called "interactive television" and the enhancement of a viewer's social
experience by connecting them with other viewers in real-time. (cpcommunications, 2019;
Geerts & De Grooff, 2009b).
In the mid and late 2000s, before the digital revolution, the concept was limited to how one
could enhance the traditional way of watching TV to support interaction with others (G
Harboe, Metcalf, & Huang, 2009). However, after the digital revolution with the emergence of
secondary viewing platforms, there are a lot more opportunities and a variety in how media can
be consumed.
Who is in control of the TV is no longer a question of who is in control of the remote. The
question rather depends on a much more vibrant and more multifaceted ecosystem consisting
of multiple screens, wide-ranging interactive content, etc. (Cesar, Wiskunde, Geerts, Leuven, &
Churchill, 2015). Watching video online is becoming increasingly popular; now, video
streaming technologies have the potential to transform watching from a passive, isolating
experience into an active, socially engaging experience (Mekuria, van Deventer, Cesar,
Vaishnavi, & Geerts, 2011).
A user data reported by the European-level association for the digital marketing and advertising
ecosystem (2014) shows that 53% of Europeans watch TV and are online at the same time
(Cohen & Lancaster, 2014). Researchers present communication while viewing media content
as an experience that strengthens bonds between people (Cesar & Geerts, 2011). As a concept,
3Social TV is not linked to a specific architecture like cable television or a cloud service. It is also
not necessarily limited to a traditional television screen. All platforms that produce video
content have the capacity to provide Social TV. Video streaming and online content are an
opportunity for researchers and practitioners from diverse backgrounds and fields to join forces
and affect the way viewers watch and experience media content (Cesar et al., 2015).
Studies have found that people have different ways of feeling connected while viewing video
content. A study described participants messaging and talking on the phone while watching
TV prior to the study (Gunnar Harboe et al., 2008). Another study in long-distance
relationships also found that it was commonplace for partners to place a laptop or computer
near or in front of a couch and broadcast their reactions to establish a feeling of connectedness.
(Neustaedter & Greenberg, 2012). These two examples show peoples need to socially connect
and interact during media consumption, which is also the main focus of Social TV.
A report from 2011 predicts that social elements will be a part of content itself appearing in
video games, tablets, or smartphones (Shin, 2013). In the years since this report, even though
there are many commercial Social TV applications in existence and use, none have managed
to make a mainstream breakthrough. Likewise, there are many technologies that have been
unsuccessful in elevating viewer’s TV and streaming experience. Most of these managed to have
a limited surge in popularity but eventually failed to capture consumers' attention over an
extended period (Shin, 2013). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a major need
for alternative methods of interaction, prompting existing Social TV services to have a surge in
popularity. Consequently, this prompted new Social TV services to be developed, as is further
discussed in subsequent sections. Shin theorizes that if the concept is ever to have a lasting
impact on consumers, the TV industry has to meet the challenge of designing Social TV
applications that meet the non-functional requirements of being useful, sociable, enjoyable, and
most importantly, user-centered (Shin, 2013).
2.1.1 Dual Information Processing
An alternative explanation for the lack of a mainstream audience for Social TV prior to the
pandemic is the physiological notion that humans find it hard to concentrate on two things at
the same time. Considerable research shows that people cannot pay close attention to verbal
information from two sources simultaneously (Weisz et al., 2007). The massive demand for
4attention required to have a dual-platform and handling two sources of information at the same
time might be such an enormous burden that any version or implementation of a Social TV
service is destined to be unsuccessful. A counter-argument is that research into this matter is
usually dated long before the emergence of different platforms such as smartphones,
smartwatches, and tablets that have changed the way people view and consume information.
According to Tecnica, a recent Nielsen rapport shows 88% of Americans multitasking on a
second device while watching TV (Anderson, 2019). It can, therefore, be argued that future
generations are better equipped and ready to adapt to the reality of consuming information
from multiple sources at once.
2.2 User Experience in Social TV
In research relating to Social TV, there have been many different types of iterations with
varying approaches to the concept. A 2016 study reviewing Social TV systems from 2000-2014
found that most studies on Social TV are exploratory in nature with a lack in theory-based
research (Bautista, Lin, & Theng, 2016). Additionally, there have been no attempts to
systematize findings from studies related to the concept. However, Geerts and De Grooff (2009)
present 12 heuristic guidelines for sociability in Social TV systems with their own empirical
research and research by others (Geerts & De Grooff, 2009b). As it is the only study presenting
guidelines, it has been widely referenced in other articles in the field even though Greets and
De Grooff state that the heuristics still need more validation. Multiple studies have used the
heuristics presented in the study as a framework while at the same time attempting to validate
the findings in the study (Bautista et al., 2016; Palviainen, Kuusinen, & Väänänänen-Vainio-
mattila, 2013).
Even though several studies have validated many of the heuristics, others have become outdated
due to technological advancements through the 11 years since the release of the study.
Guidelines in this thesis may, therefore, represents a long-awaited updated guideline to Social
TV systems.
2.2.1 Interaction method
There are currently three primary means of interaction referred to in Social TV research,
namely audio chat, text chat, and symbolic chat (emojis). Implementations of the concept use
one or multiple of these interactions methods with preferences varying from service to service.
5Most research focus on comparing text and audio chat. In terms of preference, the results vary.
For example, in a study exclusively focused on examining chat while watching video, they found
that chat made poor content better (Weisz et al., 2007). In other words, users found that
communicating while watching a video made the quality of content they were watching less
important. However, the same study also found that while chatting enabled users to engage
with each other actively, it was also a major distraction. Moreover, the videos were occasionally
not enough to sustain a conversation, whereby people would run out of things to say and feel
awkward (Weisz et al., 2007).
Another study with a comparable prototype found that adding interaction through audio chat
made users become progressively more engaged with the experience, going from peripheral
presence to full awareness and full involvement in the prototype (Gunnar Harboe et al., 2008).
Users immersed themselves more when given more detailed information in regard to how aware
they are of other participants.
Despite recent Social TV services adopting video chat as the primary means of communication,
there is, unfortunately, a lack of research on the interaction method. However, there has been
research to support that video chat provides a more elevated feeling of presence because of the
advantage of being able to see body language and other visual cues depicting emotion (Buhler,
Neustaedter, & Hillman, 2013). In addition to providing another form of interaction, video chat
arguably contributes to the immersion of interaction between users that has proven to be a
benefit in previous studies (Gunnar Harboe et al., 2008).
2.2.2 Genre
A systematic review noted that genres, to a degree, affected users’ perception of Social TV
(Bautista et al., 2016). Among six studies that asked participants which genres Social TV would
be ideal for, there was a general consensus that it was suited for sports. Other suggested genres
included in these studies were quiz shows, reality and talent shows, and news. Some studies also
created virtual spaces for users watching specific genres, which the participants responded
positively to (Palviainen et al., 2013). However, studies found that genres with high plot-
structure were less suitable for the concept (Geerts & De Grooff, 2009b).
Beyond studies discussing general aspects of the concept, other studies have focused on more
operational aspects of Social TV service. A research paper has made a system that makes it
6easier for users to transfer ongoing Social TV experiences from one device to another without
any interruption of video streaming (Jin, Xie, & Wen, 2013). A cloud computing paradigm is
adopted to encapsulate media series in the back-end and provide attractive multi-screen social
features in the front-end. Another angle into the social exploring the benefits of Social TV is
explored in the form of a syntax to analyze chat-messages to detect the mood of viewers using
social media applications (Martins, Peleja, & Magalhães, 2012). This is to both inform viewers
and companies of the popularity and feelings and attitudes towards a show. Similarly, another
study conducted by Mekuria et al. (2011) focused on the specific task of synchronization
between locations and what the synchronization requirements are for a Social TV application
to recreate the shared experience of watching TV together. The user experience of Social TV,
therefore, is based on a variety of different factors that range from the general questions of which
interaction method to use and similarly how such services will practically work and the
implications that follow.
2.3 Co-Presence
There is not an explicit agreement on how Social TV should be implemented. There is,
however, a consensus that Social TV provides a feeling of togetherness and co-presence among
users (Metcalf et al., 2008; Shin, 2013). “To utilize Social TV 2 is not merely to consume entertainment
but also to engage in communication with friends and family to reaffirm social ties, and let you get to know each
other better” (Gunnar Harboe et al., 2008, p. 9). The act of transforming the feeling of togetherness
to social platforms of this type can also be redefined as sociability. Shin (2013) redefines
sociability in emerging social technologies such as Social TV. In this context, sociability is
defined as the extent to which communication environments mediated by technology is
perceived to facilitate social interaction and to enhance social connectivity (Shin, 2013). In other
words, how we can replicate the feeling of togetherness and connectivity through technology.
The study predicts that Social TV can be an instrument of connectedness. Furthermore, Social
TV should not only be understood via exchanges of responses and feedback but also in terms
of the feeling of connectedness enabled by such continuous interaction. It has to provide quality
in the viewing experience (Shin, 2013).
Multiple studies have shown that having well-defined awareness features draws participants into
the experience fostering a sense of connectedness and interaction. Two separate studies
discovered that having the mere ability to see what others were watching provided plays a
7significant role in providing the feeling of togetherness (Bautista et al., 2016; Geerts & De
Grooff, 2009a; Gunnar Harboe et al., 2008). Knowing others were watching produces a feeling
of sociality and promotes a sense of connectedness.
A standard limitation recognized by Social TV researchers in the effects of co-presence is the
fact that Social TV applications are not widely introduced in markets. Actual behavior using
Social TV can, therefore, not be analyzed (Shin, 2013).
2.4 Second Screen
In the discussion of Social TV, Second Screen services are frequently mentioned. The
connection between the concepts Social TV and Second Screen is in the approach of trying to
capture and divide viewers' attention between video and social media. The disparity between
the two is in the fact that Social TV divides viewers’ attention in a single platform while Seconds
Screens uses multiple devices. Second Screen applications can, for example, consist of a mobile
device used for searching information, browsing the Internet, and chatting with friends, and a
smart TV that or some other kinds of tablet that stream video on a larger display (Mosqueira-
rey, Alonso-ríos, & Prado-gesto, 2017).
The secondary content might not necessarily be connected to what they are watching as
compared to Social TV. Researchers and companies are trying to replace these social media
services with applications that are specifically targeted for a specific platform, fanbase, TV-
show, or film. Similar to Social TV, the goal is to contextualize information without obstructing
the primary source of entertainment. The reality show X factor US for example, introduced
“Tap to Clap,” a feature in the show's official application, as an attempt to bridge the TV show
and its audience. Heineken also attempted something similar with “Heineken's star player,"
which encourages viewers to anticipate an outcome of an in-game event (Lochrie & Coulton,
2012).
At the time, none of these Social TV services had any commercial success, but in the wake of
the COVID-19 pandemic, services with similar ideas have resurfaced. The National Basketball
Association (NBA) has, with Microsoft, developed a Tap-to-Cheer application and video
technology that show fans faces courtside from the comfort of their homes. The application is
being used as a way for fans to feel like they are physically in the arena. (Asmelash, 2020).
8Outside the US, Yamaha has also developed a similar application “, Remote Cheerer,” that
broadcast cheers chats and boos from users (Asmelash, 2020). The pandemic has therefore led
to a rise in Second Screen services as well as Social TV.
The similarities between Social TV and Second Screens services are not only in their ability to
be a replacement for the feeling of co-presence but also in research into implementations of the
concepts. This phenomenon is explored in a study on the second screen-based prototype of
“FanFeeds," which provides socially generated information feed as a TV show companion
(Basapur et al., 2012).
In regard to similarities, the study on “FanFeeds” shows that even though they did not design
the application for Social TV use, participants still used the prototype in a manner very similar
to Social TV (Basapur et al., 2012). An additional similarity discovered in the study is the fact
that users often viewed the application as a distraction. The mental and physical effort needed
to engage appropriately with FanFeeds was cited, most often as an issue to adopting FanFeeds,
especially with engrossing shows. Moreover, the aforementioned feeling of togetherness users
felt using Social TV applications was also found in the study. FanFeeds participants seemed to
seek validation from their peers that they belonged together as friends and as a social circle.
Similarities like these indicate that the different approaches to concept might not have
significant importance. Validation of this hypothesis is further explored in the thesis.
2.5 Social TV Applications
Prior to the pandemic, there were several commercial Social TV services. However, none had
any huge commercial success. An example is Facebook’s "watch party" that was launched in
January 2018. The feature allows members in a group to watch videos on Facebook and
simultaneously interact with group members. Through the application, members can
communicate with each other using text chat, video chat, and emojis. According to Facebook,
it built the “watch party” feature because it found live videos encouraged more social
interactions than pre-recorded ones. Similar to "watch party," there was a service for Netflix
called "Netflix Party" in the form of a chrome extension. In contrast to "watch party," the
extension limits users to communicate using text chat. The service surged in popularity due to
the coronavirus epidemic in the early months of 2020 (Heritage, 2020). The epidemic resulted
in a massive quarantine of people across the world, opening an opportunity for such a service
9to gain popularity. «Right now, Netflix Party feels absolutely necessary. Self-quarantine has atomized us, and
if this is the closest we can get to watching films and TV shows with our friends, then we’ll grab it with both
hands» (Heritage, 2020).
In contrast, Facebook's "watch party" did not gain the same surge in popularity during the
pandemic. Regardless, it has prompted other major streaming disturbers to invest in Social TV
services. Amazon Prime and Hulu have launched their own “watch party” feature to their
members in the US (Perez, 2020a). In addition, Netflix and HBO have furthermore allowed for
the Social TV extension “Scener” on their websites. The service allows users to video chat with
up to 20 people while streaming a video in one of these streaming services (Perez, 2020b).
Prior to the pandemic, besides Facebook, no other major streaming platform has invested in a
Social TV service. However, many small independent providers were and are offering Social
TV services through YouTube. These services are usually either optimized for mobile or a PC
viewing platform, with few made for both. Examples of fully functioning Social TV services are
the websites Watch2gether and Twoseven (Twoseven, n.d.; Watch2gether, n.d.). In both
services, users can view YouTube videos and communicate either through text chat or video
chat. In addition, Twoseven supports videos from third party services like Netflix, Amazon,
and HBO. Adding videos from these services has had a various degrees of success due to
technical difficulties. These third-party services usually use YouTube as their primary video
source. In contrast to most video platforms, YouTube does not reacquire a login or account to
be able to stream videos. This makes it easier for Social TV developers to use YouTube’s
massive database of videos to accommodate an independent Social TV service.
Contrary to how Social TV websites operate, mobile services have a somewhat different
approach. Applications similarly use YouTube as their primary video streaming service, while
the application itself provides the variations of interaction methods between users. There is,
however, a significant difference between desktop and mobile applications. The mobile
applications try to create a social network within the application to a higher degree than desktop
applications. Examples of mobile Social TV applications and in addition the primary focus of
this study are the applications Rave, PlayNow, and Airtime. Two out of three mobile
applications mentioned have a feature whereby people can create community forums with
random people and create social networks around a viewing experience. Most of the desktop
10applications serve only to be a medium whereby existing social groups can communicate while
streaming video.
2.6 User Experience and Guidelines
Norman defines user experience as meeting the exact needs of a consumer without fuss or
bother (Norman & Nielsen, n.d.). He further explains that to achieve high-quality user
experience in a company's offering; there must be a seamless merging of the series of multiple
disciplines, including engineering, marketing, graphical and industrial design, and interface
design. The International Organization for Standardization has as outlined a more
standardized definition. They further define user experience as providing guidance on human-
system interaction as a person’s perception and responses that result from the use or anticipated
use of a product, system, or services (ISO, 2019). Examples of factors that affect users’ responses
include emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, comfort, behaviors, and accomplishments
that occur before, during, and after use.
There is no unifying theory or framework on how to design for user experience. There are,
however, numerous conceptual frameworks, guidelines, and relevant research findings that
contribute to how to design for user experience (Fiskerstrand, Guribye, & Flobak, 2019). As the
field of Social TV is still relatively new, there is to this day no clearly defined guidelines on how
to design for a good user experience for services adapting the concept. Additionally, Morgan
Kaufmann iterates that user experience design guidelines stemming from human factors should
earn a strong authority form a firm grounding in the shared experience of the UX community-
experience (Kaufmann, 2012). This thesis aims to add guidelines to the field that support the
UX community in getting a better grounding in regard to the emerging field.
11Chapter 3
Methodology
In order to create visual guidelines for a Social TV platform, a field study was performed with
15 people over a three-week period. Data was collected related to their use of three comercial
Social TV mobile applications. The results give an understanding of the requirements and needs
of users in regard to a Social TV service.
Figure 3.1 presents an outline of the thesis workflow in its four stages, from the initial stages of
field study to the presentation of results in visual guidelines. Sections in the chapter, therefore,
present methods used within each step. Stage 1 sets the perimeters for the field study. When
these are set, the field study is conducted in stage 2. Data from the study is analyzed in discussed
in stage 3. In stage 4, visual guidelines are presented based on the knowledge gained in previous
stages.
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4
Set Per imeter s Field Study: Analyse and Pr esent
for Field Study Questionnair es, User Discuss Data Low-Fidelity
Diar ies and Inter vews Pr ototype
Figure 3.1: An Overview of the Study Workflow
123.1 Stage One and Two: Field Study Implementation
Stage one consists of setting the parameters and preparing the field study in terms of defining a
target group, setting requirements, recruitment of participants, and providing adequate
incentives. Once stage one is finalized, stage two, field study is initiated with questionnaires,
user diaries, and interviews used as supplementary methods.
3.1.1 Field Study
The field study is a general method of collecting data about users, user needs, and product
requirements that involves observation and interviewing. Data is collected about task flows and
users' organizational and physical environments (Usability of knowledge, 2010).
Field research differs from usability testing and heuristic reviews as data gathering methods in
two fundamental ways. First, it does not require the design of a prototype to be produced before
data can be collected. Second, it offers ways to gather and analyze users' work as it is in its
current state. This research method is exploratory and seeks to examine what exists to have a
better idea about the dynamics that operate within the natural setting. The main objection is
the acquisition of knowledge. By testing assumptions, the field study seeks to determine what
hypothesis best predicts the relationship of variables in a specific context (Wixon et al., 2002).
In this thesis, the method of conducting a field study is used as a clearly defined and structured
approach that makes it easier to record individual experiences in a fashion that is easily
understandable and analyzed. A field study also allows for research in the natural environment
over a long period, which results in better, reliable, and independent data.
3.1.2 Procedure
At the beginning of the field study, there was a meeting with each participant, whereby the
participant's function was explained in detail. At the end of the meeting, each participant signed
a consent form confirming their participation. In the initial phase of the field study, participants
received an email with links to the session user diary. Users were thereafter required to use their
assigned application three times a week for 30 minutes and answer the session diary after each
use. On Fridays, participants received a message with updates on how many sessions they had
completed and how many were remained for the given week. On Sundays, participants got an
email with a link to the weekly user diary entry, which was to be sent that day. After the first
week, one participant was dismissed from the study as a result of not making any entries in the
13user diary. Three other participants had a variation of personal issues that caused them not to
reach the session user diary requirement. In special situations, some participants were allowed
to skip a session or two if they could not meet their weekly quota. At the end of the field study,
each participant was called in for an evaluative interview. In the interview, they discussed their
entries in the user diaries, the user interfaces of the given application, and the experience as a
whole.
3.1.3 Participants
Ethical Considerations
The data collected from participants in this study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for
Research Data (Norsk Senter for forskningsdata – NSD). All 15 participants involved in the
study signed a consent form during the initial interview before the field study. The approval
form NSD can be found in Appendix A.
All the participants were informed of their right to be removed from the study at any point.
They were also assured that all identifying information would be anonymized in the thesis. No
sensitive questions regarding their private lives were asked.
Purposive Sampling
Purposive sampling is the technique used in choosing participants for the field study. The
method relies on the researcher's self-judgment when choosing members to participate in a
study (Research Methodology, n.d.)
Figure 3.2: Visualization of Purposive Sampling(Research Methodology, n.d.)
14The sampling method has many limitations due to the subjective nature in choosing the sample,
and thus it is not a good representative of the population. However, it is useful, especially when
randomization is impossible, like when the population is very large (Etikan, 2016). The decision
was made to focus on a specific target group to better test certain parts of the community, likely
to adapt the applications in question.
The ideal participants for this project are people aged 18-40 who use social media and streaming
services regularly. This choice was made to focus on people adapting to social media and
streaming services to see how adjustable they are to a concept integrating features that they are
familiar with. Besides, having a wide range of age accounts for differing media habits and
knowledge connected to users' familiarity with the Internet. The user's age is not only a
determining factor in regard to which social media platform one uses but also interaction
patterns and habits in a specific platform. By having a wide age range, the study, therefore,
takes this disparity into account.
An essential requirement of users of the field study is being familiar with and using YouTube as
one of their preferred streaming platforms. As expanded upon in Chapter 2, Social TV
platforms and including those being used in the field study, use YouTube as their central third
service video platform. It is, therefore, beneficial for users to be familiar with the platform's
inventory of videos to better immerse themselves in the experience. Based on participants
gathered, a variation of the target group was divided into three groups of five people.
Target Group and Sampling
Within five days of making the questionnaire public, 440 inquiries and potential applicants were
admitted. These were narrowed down to 15 participants based on the above-mentioned ideal
Of the applicants, 68% were female. There was also a more substantial majority of females that
met the IT criteria. Each group was, therefore, divided into three females and two males. Also,
63% of the applicants were in the age range 20-30. A majority of entries in this age range
reached the IT criteria. Out of the applicants older than 30, only 3.6% reached the IT criteria
and 2.3% under 20 years. Due to this fact, each of the three groups had a majority of
participants in the age range 20-30. However, there was at least one participant under 20 and
one participant over 30 on each group to provide a broader age range for the study. Table 3.1
illustrates to which degree chosen participants in each group fit the given criteria.
15Criteria Participants
Gender Female: 3 Male: 2
Age 3: 20-30
1: 30-35 years
1: 19-17 years
IT Moderately to highly experienced with:
● Social media
● Streaming services
● YouTube
Table 3.1: Group Division Based on the Sample of Participants
Incentive
With a study of this magnitude consisting of many user diary entries, questionnaires, and
interviews, a significant compensation was required. Financed by TV2-Sumo, it was decided
that each participant would receive a 1500 NOK gift card and also a one-year subscription of
TV2-sumo or four months of Sumo TOTAL, which includes live sports events. Both of these
are worth approximately the same amount of 1200 NOK. The fact that participants would have
to convince their friends/family to be a part of the study was taken into account. It was decided
that additional compensation would be given to two requites of the participant's choice, to make
the burden easier on the participants. Their only part in the study was to be dedicated
companions assisting the participants in the study. Recruits received compensation in the form
of a one-year subscription of TV2-Sumo. In total, compensation was therefore granted to the
45 people.
Demographics
Before the field study, a questionnaire was sent to all the chosen participants in order to gather
additional information. These questions dive deeper into the participant's media and streaming
habits and to better inform the data from the field study. Table 3.2 displays the participants'
social media and streaming habits based on a questionnaire each participant was required to
fill out prior to the study.
16Variables Values n % Time spent on 30m – 1 Hour 5 31 social media in a 2-3 Hours 7 44 day 4-5 Hours 3 20 Time spent
Session Diary
Participants were required to use an application for 30 minutes, three times a week, during the
three weeks of the study. For each session, the participants were further required to make an
entry to the session diary. The function of the session diary is to review and gather information
about the participant’s approach and experience with the specific session. Questions were, for
example, aimed at determining the title of the YouTube channel or the genre of the videos
watched. To gather information about users' experience, a Likert scale asking users to rate the
session was presented. The session diary consisted of nine questions and can be found in
Appendix A.
Weekly Diary
In addition to the session’s diary, participants were required to make two entries in a weekly
diary to be filled after the first and second week. Here, participants were encouraged to express
and explain their experiences in a more detailed manner. Therefore, questions focus on
qualitative data about their feelings with the application and the concept thus far. The weekly
diary consisted of six questions and can be found in Appendix B.
Questionnaire
Multiple questionnaires are used in tandem with the other method listed to gather data about
the participants.
Questionnaires are a well-established technique for collecting demographic data and users'
opinions (Preece, 2015). Questionnaires have their place as one method of most value when
used in tandem with other methods. The multi-method approach to real-life questions is
essential because one approach is rarely adequate, and if the results of different methods
converge, then we can have greater confidence in the findings (Gillham, 2007).
Questionnaires are therefore used in the thesis as a supplementary method to gather measurable
data to either support or dismiss data collected in other methods.
Modern questionnaires are often web-based. The advantage of these compared to paper-based
questionnaires is that there are fewer unanswered questions and more detailed answers to open
questions. Web-based questionnaires also provide immediate data validations (Preece, 2015).
Furthermore, web questionnaires were the preferred method in the thesis because it could be
done remotely and consequently save time.
18In the thesis, the method is used on three occasions; first, as a sampling method in the
recruitment process. Second, as a method in gathering demographic data about the
participants. Both will be further addressed in the next section as they are more relevant to the
acquisition of participants. And third, during the interview with the participants using the QUIS
questionnaire guide.
QUIS Questionnaire
The Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction (QUIS) is a measurement tool designed to
assess computer users' subjective satisfaction with a human-computer interface (Chin, Diehl, &
Norman, 2012). The questionnaire contains a measure of overall system satisfaction along with
six scales and hierarchically organized means of interface factors. The questionnaire is designed
to be configured according to the needs of each interface analysis by including only the sections
that are of interest to the researcher (Chin et al., 2012). Each area measures users' overall
satisfaction with a facet of the interface, as well as the factors that makeup said facet on a 9-
point scale. Interface factors measured:
a. Overall reactions to the software
b. Screen
c. Terminology and system information
d. Learning
e. System capabilities
f. Usability and UI
All participants filled out the QUIS questionnaire during their ending interview and were
encouraged to give justifications for their grade for each measurement. The questionnaire’s
function is to focus on gathering data that retain the UI of the different applications compared
to the user experience. The questionnaire also contributes to adding measurable data that assist
in accurately comparing the three applications used in the field study.
Semi-Structured Interview
The semi-structured interview method is used as the primary evaluative method to evaluate the
participant's experiences in the field study. A concluding interview was administered at the final
stages of the three-week field study. Semi-structured interviews combine features of structured
and unstructured interviews and use both closed and open-ended questions (Preece, 2015). The
method of data gathering opens for the collection of analyzable specific metrics. Similarly,
19because of the qualitative nature of the study, exploratory questions can be asked to understand
each unique users' viewpoint regarding their user experience better. The structured part of the
conversation had close-ended questions to help have guild measurable results. The unstructured
part of the interview however, consisted of asking general questions regarding the experience of
using the application and allowing the participants to express their expertise freely. Also, the
participants were asked to give a more detailed explanation of the unclear entries in the diaries.
3.1.5 Social TV Platforms
In deciding which platforms to use in the field study, there was a thorough review of existing
commercial services as expanded upon in Chapter 2. The initial plan was to test desktop
applications due to the advantage of a bigger platform. However, due to several reliability issues
with numerous web services, the focus switched to mobile apps instead. Applications were
chosen based on their differencing approaches to the concept. The applications chosen have
vastly different user interfaces. The applications also differ in their approaches to which
interaction method they use and highlight to accommodate a Social TV experience (STE). The
results of the field study, therefore, become a reflection of distinctive approaches to the concept.
Table 3.3 highlight the main differences between the applications approach to the concept.
Each application’s essential features and pages are subsequently explained in the section. This
is done to give a thorough understanding of the application user interface, and therefore better
set the field study results into context. All personal and identifying information has been
removed.
Applications Airtime Rave PlayNow
Interaction method Text Chat ü ü ü
Audio Chat x ü x
Video Chat ü x x
Third-party video YouTube ü ü ü
streaming platform
supported
Netflix x ü x
Vimeo x ü x
“Community room” streaming feature x ü ü
Max users in a room (Social TV Experience) 10 20+ 8
Table 3.3: Comparisons of the Features in the Applications
20You can also read
