It's All Around You: Exploring 360° Video Viewing Experiences on Mobile Devices

360° videos are a new kind of medium that gives the viewers a sense of real immersion as they glimpse the action from all angles and directions. Naturally, professional and amateur film-makers are actively adopting this new medium for transformative storytelling. Despite this phenomenal progress in 360° video creation, current understanding on users' viewing experience of these videos is limited. In this paper, we present the first comparative study on the user experience with 360° videos on mobile devices using different interaction techniques. We observed 18 participants' interaction with six 360°videos with different viewport characteristics (static or moving) on a smartphone, a tablet and a head mounted display (HMD) respectively and measured how they interact with the content. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with the participants in which they explained their interaction with and viewing experience of 360° videos across three devices. Our findings show that 360° videos with moving viewports elicit higher engagement from the viewers, and offer superior viewing experience. However, these videos are cognitively demanding and require constant user attention. Our participants preferred the condition with dynamic peephole interaction on a smartphone for watching 360° videos due to the simplicity in exploration and familiarity with navigation controls. Many participants reported that the HMD offers the most immersive experience however it comes at the expense of higher cognitive burden, motion sickness and physical discomfort.

[1]  Marcel Worring,et al.  Navigating on hand held displays: Dynamic versus Static Keyhole Navigation , 2006 .

[2]  Martin Kraus,et al.  A comparison of head-mounted and hand-held displays for 360° videos with focus on attitude and behavior change , 2016, MindTrek.

[3]  Kenton O'Hara,et al.  Consuming video on mobile devices , 2007, CHI.

[4]  Vivian Genaro Motti,et al.  Understanding the wearability of head-mounted devices from a human-centered perspective , 2014, SEMWEB.

[5]  Mel Slater,et al.  Body Centred Interaction in Immersive Virtual Environments , 1994 .

[6]  Louise Barkhuus,et al.  Panoramic video: design challenges and implications for content interaction , 2013, EuroITV.

[7]  Jonathan W. Kelly,et al.  The impact of three interfaces for 360-degree video on spatial cognition , 2012, CHI.

[8]  Randy F. Pausch,et al.  Designing A Successful HMD-Based Experience , 1999, Presence.

[9]  Randy Pausch,et al.  A user study comparing head-mounted and stationary displays , 1993, Proceedings of 1993 IEEE Research Properties in Virtual Reality Symposium.

[10]  Ji-Hyung Park,et al.  The effects of visual displacement on simulator sickness in video see-through head-mounted displays , 2014, SEMWEB.

[11]  Jochen Huber,et al.  Towards effective interaction with omnidirectional videos using immersive virtual reality headsets , 2015, AH.

[12]  Dominik Strohmeier,et al.  Designing for user experience: what to expect from mobile 3d tv and video? , 2008, UXTV '08.

[13]  Florence March,et al.  2016 , 2016, Affair of the Heart.

[14]  Hrvoje Benko,et al.  Multi-point interactions with immersive omnidirectional visualizations in a dome , 2010, ITS '10.

[15]  Jun Rekimoto,et al.  First Person Omnidirectional Video: System Design and Implications for Immersive Experience , 2015, TVX.

[16]  Jing Li,et al.  The influence of controllers on immersion in mobile games , 2014, CHI.

[17]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[18]  Tomohiro Amemiya,et al.  Shaking the world: galvanic vestibular stimulation as a novel sensation interface , 2005, SIGGRAPH '05.

[19]  Lizzy Bleumers,et al.  Seeing the bigger picture: a user perspective on 360° TV , 2012, EuroITV.

[20]  Johannes Schöning,et al.  Impact of item density on the utility of visual context in magic lens interactions , 2009, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[21]  Johannes Schöning,et al.  Map navigation with mobile devices: virtual versus physical movement with and without visual context , 2007, ICMI '07.

[22]  Roman Rädle,et al.  Bigger is not always better: display size, performance, and task load during peephole map navigation , 2014, CHI.

[23]  Max Mühlhäuser,et al.  Toward more efficient user interfaces for mobile video browsing: an in-depth exploration of the design space , 2010, ACM Multimedia.

[24]  Johannes Schöning,et al.  Changing the camera-to-screen angle to improve AR browser usage , 2016, MobileHCI.

[25]  Jan Kautz,et al.  Device effect on panoramic video+context tasks , 2014, CVMP.

[26]  Teresa Chambel,et al.  Immersive 360° mobile video with an emotional perspective , 2013, ImmersiveMe '13.

[27]  Samuel S. Silva,et al.  Head-mounted display versus desktop for 3D navigation in virtual reality: a user study , 2008, Multimedia Tools and Applications.