Alone or together: measuring users' viewing experience in different social contexts

In the past decades, a lot of effort has been invested in predicting the users’ Quality of Visual Experience (QoVE) in order to optimize online video delivery. So far, the objective approaches to measure QoVE have been mainly based on an estimation of the visibility of artifacts generated by signal impairments at the moment of delivery and on a prediction of how annoying these artifacts are to the end user. Recently, it has been shown that other aspects, such as user interest or viewing context, also have a crucial influence on QoVE. Social context is one of these aspects, but it has been poorly investigated in relation to QoVE so far. In this paper, we report the outcomes of an experiment that aims at unveiling the role that social context, and in particular co-located co-viewing, plays within the visual experience and the annoyance of coding artifacts. The results show that social context significantly influences user’s QoVE, whereas the appearance of artifacts doesn’t have impact on viewing experience, although users can still notice them. The results suggest that quantifying the impact of social context on user experience is of major importance to accurately predict QoVE towards video delivery optimization.

[1]  Dean M. Krugman,et al.  A Look At Mass and Computer Mediated Technologies: Understanding the Roles of Television and Computers in the Home , 2001 .

[2]  Vyas Sekar,et al.  Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement , 2011, SIGCOMM.

[3]  Elaine Toms,et al.  What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[4]  Vyas Sekar,et al.  Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement , 2011, SIGCOMM 2011.

[5]  Y. Tanaka,et al.  Relation between willingness to pay and guaranteed minimum bandwidth in multiple-priority service , 2004, APCC/MDMC '04. The 2004 Joint Conference of the 10th Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications and the 5th International Symposium on Multi-Dimensional Mobile Communications Proceeding.

[6]  Judith Redi Visual quality beyond artifact visibility , 2013, Electronic Imaging.

[7]  S. Möller,et al.  All Users Are (Not) Equal - The Influence of User Characteristics on Perceived Quality, Modality Choice and Performance , 2011, IWSDS.

[8]  Marília Curado,et al.  An Overview of Quality of Experience Measurement Challenges for Video Applications in IP Networks , 2010, WWIC.

[9]  Holger Regenbrecht,et al.  The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[10]  Konstantinos Chorianopoulos,et al.  Introduction to Social TV: Enhancing the Shared Experience with Interactive TV , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  Lora Oehlberg,et al.  Social TV: Designing for Distributed, Sociable Television Viewing , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications , 1993 .

[13]  Tetsunori Kobayashi,et al.  Proceedings of the Paralinguistic Information and its Integration in Spoken Dialogue Systems Workshop , 2011 .

[14]  Philip T. Kortum,et al.  The Effect of Content Desirability on Subjective Video Quality Ratings , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Sugato Chakravarty,et al.  Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures , 1995 .

[16]  Stephen R. Gulliver,et al.  Stars in their eyes: what eye-tracking reveals about multimedia perceptual quality , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[17]  Heiko Schwarz,et al.  Overview of the Scalable Video Coding Extension of the H.264/AVC Standard , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[18]  Peter Schelkens,et al.  Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience , 2013 .

[19]  Robert S. Lee,et al.  How and why people watch TV: implications for the future of interactive television , 1995 .

[20]  Francois Le Faucheur,et al.  Preserving Video Quality in IPTV Networks , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[21]  Pamela C. Cosman,et al.  A Versatile Model for Packet Loss Visibility and its Application to Packet Prioritization , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[22]  Elaine Toms,et al.  The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  Sheila S. Hemami,et al.  No-reference image and video quality estimation: Applications and human-motivated design , 2010, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[24]  A. Valle,et al.  Diffusion of nuclear energy in some developing countries , 2014 .

[25]  E. Salas,et al.  Human Factors : The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 2012 .

[26]  M. Argyle Social interactions. , 1976, Science.

[27]  Martin Reisslein,et al.  Objective Video Quality Assessment Methods: A Classification, Review, and Performance Comparison , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[28]  E. Toms,et al.  What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  David Gauntlett,et al.  TV Living: Television, Culture and Everyday Life , 1999 .

[30]  Savvas Papagiannidis,et al.  User experience on mobile video appreciation: How to engross users and to enhance their enjoyment in watching mobile video clips , 2012 .