Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Contextual aspects of typical viewing situations: a new perspective for recommending television and video content

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we present a better understanding of the contextual aspects that determine TV and video viewing situations in the home. The results can be used to design recommender systems algorithms and interfaces for TV and video content that better fits with different viewing situations in the home. This is achieved by taking into account these typical viewing situations and the respective manifestations of contextual factors. In a first, ethnographic, study with 12 households to better understand everyday viewing practices, we obtained insights into the relation between the type of content and the amount of attention paid, the type of content and planned versus spontaneous behaviour, the role of the structure of the household, and the way people discover content. In a second, multi-method, study with seven households, we identified seven typical viewing situations and elaborated on how four important contextual factors—time, mood, content and viewers—constitute these viewing situations or experiences in the home. After combining the results from both studies, two additional contextual aspects were added: content delivery type and viewing mode. The insights from these studies allow us to suggest opportunities for the design of recommender system algorithms that take into account the four contextual aspects and to formulate implications for the design of recommender interfaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Terveen LG, Riedl JT (2004) Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 22:5–53. doi:10.1145/963770.963772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adomavicius G, Tuzhilin A (2005) Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17:734–749. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2005.99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8:19–30. doi:10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Churchill E (2013) Putting the person back into personalization. Interactions. 20:12–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Masthoff J (2004) Group modeling: selecting a sequence of television items to suit a group of viewers. User Model User-Adapt Interact 14:37–85. doi:10.1023/B:USER.0000010138.79319.fd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stefanidis K, Shabib N, Nørv\aag K, Krogstie J (2012) Contextual recommendations for groups. Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on advances in conceptual modeling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 89–97

  7. Yu Z, Zhou X, Hao Y, Gu J (2006) Tv program recommendation for multiple viewers based on user profile merging. User Model User-Adapt Interact 16:63–82. doi:10.1007/s11257-006-9005-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McNee SM, Riedl J, Konstan JA (2006) Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. CHI’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1097–1101

  9. Knijnenburg BP, Willemsen MC, Gantner Z et al (2012) Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Model User-Adapt Interact 22:441–504. doi:10.1007/s11257-011-9118-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pu P, Chen L, Hu R (2011) A User-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems. Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on recommender systems. ACM, New York, pp 157–164

  11. Shani G, Gunawardana A (2011) Evaluating recommendation systems. In: Ricci F, Rokach L, Shapira B, Kantor PB (eds) Recommender systems handbook. Springer, US, pp 257–297

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Barneveld JV, Setten MV (2004) Designing usable interfaces for tv recommender systems. Personalized digital television. Springer, Netherlands, pp 259–285

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Tintarev N, Masthoff J (2012) Evaluating the effectiveness of explanations for recommender systems. User Model User-Adapt Interact 22:399–439. doi:10.1007/s11257-011-9117-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Navarro-Prieto R, Rebaque-Rivas P, Hernández-Pablo J (2010) Recommending content for ITV: What the users really want? Proceedings of the 8th international interactive conference on interactive TV; video. ACM, New York, pp 123–126

  15. Obrist M, Moser C, Alliez D, et al. (2009) Connecting TV & PC: an in situ field evaluation of an unified electronic program guide concept. Proceedings of the seventh European conference on European interactive television conference. ACM, New York, pp 91–100

  16. Bernhaupt R, Wilfinger D, Weiss A, Tscheligi M (2008) An ethnographic study on recommendations in the living room: implications for the design of itv recommender systems. In: Tscheligi M, Obrist M, Lugmayr A (eds) Changing television environments. Springer, pp 92–101

  17. Saxbe D, Graesch A, Alvik M (2011) Television as a social or solo activity: understanding families’ everyday television viewing patterns. Commun Res Rep 28:180–189. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.566104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mercer K, May A, Mitchel V (2014) Designing for video: investigating the contextual cues within viewing situations. Pers Ubiquit Comput 18:723–735. doi:10.1007/s00779-013-0702-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barkhuus L (2009) Television on the internet: new practices, new viewers. Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 2479–2488

  20. Lull J (1980) Family communication patterns and the social uses of television. Commun Res 7:319–333. doi:10.1177/009365028000700303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Abreu J, Almeida P, Teles B, Reis M (2013) Viewer behaviors and practices in the (new) television environment. Proceedings of the 11th European conference on interactive TV and video. ACM, New York, pp 5–12

  22. Chaney AJB, Gartrell M, Hofman JM, et al. (2014) A large-scale exploration of group viewing patterns. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video. ACM, New York, pp 31–38

  23. Vanattenhoven J, Geerts D (2012) Second-screen use in the home: an ethnographic study. Proceedings 3rd international workshop on future television, EuroITV 2012. Springer, Berlin, p 12

  24. Bolger N, Davis A, Rafaeli E (2003) Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annu Rev Psychol 54:579–616. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee RS (1995) How and why people watch TV: implications for the future of interactive television. J Advert Res 35:9–18

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kujala S, Roto V, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Karapanos E, Sinnelä A (2011) UX Curve: a method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interact Comput 23:473–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wheatley DJ (2014) Design and evaluation of a children’s tablet video application. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video. ACM, New York, pp 79–86

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results was carried out in the HBB-NEXT project and has received funding from the EC Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No 287848, and in the TV-RING project (EC Grant Agreement ICT PSP-325209).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for User Experience Research, iMinds - KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45 Bus 3605, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Jeroen Vanattenhoven & David Geerts

Authors
  1. Jeroen Vanattenhoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Geerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeroen Vanattenhoven.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vanattenhoven, J., Geerts, D. Contextual aspects of typical viewing situations: a new perspective for recommending television and video content. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19, 761–779 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0861-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0861-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation