How fast is too fast? evaluating fast forward surrogates for digital video

To support effective browsing, interfaces to digital video libraries should include video surrogates (i.e., smaller objects that can stand in for the videos in the collection, analogous to abstracts standing in for documents). The current study investigated four variations (i.e., speeds) of one form of video surrogate: a fast forward created by selecting every Nth frame from the full video. In addition, it tested the validity of six measures of user performance when interacting with video surrogates. Forty-five study participants interacted with all four versions of the fast forward surrogate, and completed all six performance tasks with each. Surrogate speed affected performance on four of the measures: object recognition (graphical), action recognition, linguistic gist comprehension (full text), and visual gist comprehension. Based on these results, we recommend a fast forward default speed of 1:64 of the original video keyframes. In addition, users should control the choice of fast forward speed to adjust for content characteristics and personal preferences.

[1]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Dynamic key frame presentation techniques for augmenting video browsing , 1998, AVI '98.

[2]  Dragutin Petkovic,et al.  CueVideo: automated multimedia indexing and retrieval , 1999, MULTIMEDIA '99.

[3]  Andreas Dieberger,et al.  Hierarchical brushing in a collection of video data , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Erwin Panofsky,et al.  Meaning in the Visual Arts: Papers in and on Art History , 1955 .

[5]  H. Barlow.  Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology by Stephen E. Palmer , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Interface Concepts for the Open Video Project. , 2001 .

[7]  Alexander G. Hauptmann,et al.  Adjustable filmstrips and skims as abstractions for a digital video library , 1999, Proceedings IEEE Forum on Research and Technology Advances in Digital Libraries.

[8]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Emotion & design: attractive things work better , 2002, INTR.

[9]  Alan F. Smeaton,et al.  Designing the User Interface for the Físchlár Digital Video Library , 2006, J. Digit. Inf..

[10]  Gustav Öquist,et al.  Adaptive Rapid Serial Visual Presentation , 2001 .

[11]  Brian C. O'Connor,et al.  Access to Moving Image Documents: Background Concepts and Proposals for Surrogates for film and video Works , 1985, J. Documentation.

[12]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Content + connectivity => community: digital resources for a learning community , 1997, DL '97.

[13]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human-computer interactions , 2001 .

[14]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Multimodal surrogates for video browsing , 1999, DL '99.

[15]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Open video: A framework for a test collection , 2000, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[16]  Steven M. Drucker,et al.  SmartSkip: consumer level browsing and skipping of digital video content , 2002, CHI.

[17]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Alternative Surrogates for Video Objects in a Digital Library: Users' Perspectives on Their Relative Usability , 2002, ECDL.

[18]  Michael G. Christel,et al.  Evolving video skims into useful multimedia abstractions , 1998, CHI.

[19]  Wolfgang Effelsberg,et al.  Video abstracting , 1997, CACM.

[20]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  Intelligent Access to Digital Video: Informed m , 1996 .

[21]  Philip Herbert Hoff.  Consumer electronics for engineers , 1998 .

[22]  T. Grodal.  Moving Pictures: A New Theory of Film Genres, Feelings, and Cognition , 1997 .

[23]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Key frame preview techniques for video browsing , 1998, DL '98.

[24]  Catherine C. Marshall,et al.  2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries , 2003 .

[25]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Building an Electronic Learning Community: From Design to Implementation , 2003 .

[26]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Measuring usability: preference vs. performance , 1994, CACM.