DELIVERABLE - Europa...This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly...

0 version 1.6, 30/01/2015

TV-RING D2.2.1 List of User Requirements (second iteration)

DELIVERABLE

Project Acronym: TV-RING

Grant Agreement number: 325209

Project Title: Television Ring - Testbeds for Connected TV services using HbbTV

D2.2.1 List of User Requirements (second iteration)

Revision: 1.6

Authors:

David Geerts (iMinds/KU Leuven)

Rinze Leenheer (iMinds/KU Leuven)

Jeroen Vanattenhoven (iMinds/KU Leuven)

Marc Aguilar (i2CAT)

Mar Rodriguez (RBB)

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme

Dissemination Level

P Public x

C Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services

Abstract: Set of user requirements gathered through two iterations of field studies and interviews with (potential) end users of HbbTV applications.

1 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Revision History

Revision Date Author Organisation Description

0.1 03-10-2013

David Geerts & Rinze Leenheer

iMinds/KU Leuven

Added Table of Contents

0.2 28-10-2013

Rinze Leenheer iMinds/KU Leuven

Added Deadlines

0.3 15-10-2013

Marc Aguilar I2CAT Added first draft of sections 8.1 & 8.2

0.4 15-10-2013


Added first draft of sections 6.1 & 6.2

0.5 04-11-2013

Marc Aguilar I2CAT Finished sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3

0.6 04-12-2013

Mar Rodriguez RBB Added first draft of sections 7.1, 7.2 & 7.3

0.7 09-12-2013


iMinds/KU Leuven

Added first draft of section 6.3 added section 3 introduction and section 5

objectives and updated general sections

0.8 23-12-2013


Added First Draft of sections 9 and 10 and updated section 6.3

0.9 08-01-2014


iMinds/KU Leuven

Updated sections 6, 9 and 10

1.0 17-01-2014

Mar Rodriguez RBB Updated section 7

1.1 24-01-2014


iMinds/KU Leuven

Completely reworked section 9 and the conclusion, added executive

summary

1.2 28-01-2014

Marc Aguilar & Sergi Fernández

I2CAT Final formatting and review

1.3 19-01-2015

Jeroen Vanattenhoven

& Rinze Leenheer

iMinds/KU Leuven

Integrated all input on 2nd iteration user requirements

1.4 26-01-2015

Ammar Hamilcar Tijani

PPG Final review

2 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


1.5 30-01-2015

Jeroen Vanattenhoven

iMinds/KU Leuven

Integrated final review comments

1.6 28-04-2016

David Geerts iMinds / KU Leuven

Added clarifications about the two iterations to ease the understanding

of the deliverable

3 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Statement of originality:

This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.

Disclaimer

The information, documentation and figures available in this deliverable, is written by the TV-RING (Testbeds for Connected TV services using HbbTV) – project consortium under EC grant agreement ICT PSP-325209 and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

4 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


1. Executive Summary

This deliverable presents the results of two iterations of requirements gathering in task 2.2 (“End-user requirements”) of the TV-RING project, the first iteration from M1-M4, the second iteration from M13-M16. The goal of this task is to understand the users who will eventually use the applications and services that will be developed in the project, and use this to generate user requirements for their development.

As the TV-RING project consists of three pilots, in each iteration user requirements were gathered separately for each of the pilots. However, a general requirements gathering plan and methodology was created in order to streamline the process and make it possible to join the results of the three pilots. The focus points for each pilot were collected by sending out a request to each partner to provide the focus points of their pilot. The commonalities between the different focus points of each pilot were analysed, resulting in the following three aspects as general focus points for the TV-RING project:

Who are our end users and what are their (interactive) TV habits?

What kind of quality do end users expect from HbbTV?

How can we design applications for specific target users or specific content types? Before the individual pilots started their end-user research, they were all asked to list the

methods they were planning to apply. A guide was created that listed the proposed methods

and gave tips on applying them. Methods used in the different pilots were: contextual inquiry

(observations and interviews on location), interviews, hands-on sessions and requirements

workshops.

After the first iteration of requirements gathering in each pilot (of which the methods, participants and resulting requirements are described in detail in separate chapters), a workshop with representatives from all project partners was held to combine the requirements from the three pilots by clustering them into similar categories. As a result, overall TV-RING requirements were generated in four categories.

First of all, a good user experience should be offered, including technical issues (performance), ease of use and a smooth experience (usability), and the issue of distracting and engaging users when dealing with multiple screens (distraction vs. engagement). Secondly, as time shifting is becoming a habit for many people, there are requirements on how to deal with delayed and on demand viewing, but also how the second screen is used outside of the show’s broadcast. Thirdly, HbbTV has to offer sufficient added value, meaning that the end-user expects something he/she would not experience when just watching the show. HbbTV should offer the user the option to participate with the show, to get a personalized experience, have the option to share his experience through social media, enhance the social interaction within the household or receive extra content for his favorite show. Finally, the fourth set of overall requirements deals with opportunities to profit from interactive TV, how to include end users in the development, and how new technologies such as VR or multi-camera displays could enhance the experience even more in the future.

In the second iteration, the goal was to focus on gathering requirements for the specific applications that were being developed in the three pilots. That way, the requirements from the first iteration could be refined and expanded leading to more targeted results.

This deliverable contains the results of both iterations: chapter 5-9 details the approach and results of the first iteration, while chapter 10-13 describes the second iteration.

5 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


2. Contributors

First Name Last Name Company e-Mail

David Geerts iMinds/KU Leuven

[email protected]


[email protected]

Jeroen Vanattenhoven iMinds/KU Leuven

[email protected]

Marc Aguilar I2CAT [email protected]

Pau Pamplona I2CAT [email protected]

Sergi Fernández I2CAT [email protected]

Mar Rodriguez RBB [email protected]

Nicolas Patz RBB [email protected]

6 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Table of Contents

Revision History ......................................................................................................................... 1

1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4

2. Contributors ........................................................................................................................... 5

3. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11

4. Action Log ............................................................................................................................ 12

5. Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 13

5.1. Focus points .................................................................................................................. 13

5.2. General requirements plan and methodology ............................................................. 14

5.2.1. Literature research ................................................................................................. 14

5.2.2. Contextual Inquiry .................................................................................................. 14

5.2.3. Interviews ............................................................................................................... 15

5.2.4. Focus Groups .......................................................................................................... 15

5.2.5. Prototyping ............................................................................................................. 15

6. German Pilot Requirements ................................................................................................ 16

6.1. Methods Used ............................................................................................................... 16

6.2. Participants ................................................................................................................... 17

6.3. Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 17

6.4. Results ........................................................................................................................... 17

6.4.1. Interaction and participation .................................................................................. 18

6.4.2. Content ................................................................................................................... 19

6.4.3. UX ........................................................................................................................... 19

6.4.4. Quality and performance (VoD) ............................................................................. 20

6.5. User stories ................................................................................................................... 21

6.5.1. Interaction and Participation .................................................................................. 21

6.5.2. Content ................................................................................................................... 22

6.5.3. UX ........................................................................................................................... 22

6.5.4. Quality and performance ....................................................................................... 23

6.6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 24

6.6.1. List of User Requirements ...................................................................................... 24

6.6.2. List of User Stories .................................................................................................. 24

7. Dutch Pilot Requirements .................................................................................................... 26

7.1. Methods Used ............................................................................................................... 26

7.2. Participants ................................................................................................................... 28

7.3. Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 29

7 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


7.4. Results ........................................................................................................................... 29

7.4.1. Usability .................................................................................................................. 29

7.4.2. Synchronicity .......................................................................................................... 30

7.4.3. Social interaction .................................................................................................... 31

7.4.4. Attention ................................................................................................................. 32

7.4.5. Added Value ........................................................................................................... 35

7.5. User stories ................................................................................................................... 38

7.5.1. Usability .................................................................................................................. 38

7.5.2. Social Interaction .................................................................................................... 39

7.5.3. Attention ................................................................................................................. 40

7.5.4. Added Value ........................................................................................................... 41

7.6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 42



8. Spanish Pilot Requirements ................................................................................................. 45

8.1. Methods Used ............................................................................................................... 45

8.2. Participants ................................................................................................................... 48

8.3. Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 50

8.4. Results ........................................................................................................................... 50

8.4.1. Social context.......................................................................................................... 51

8.4.2. Business and advertising ........................................................................................ 52

8.4.3. Design, control and recommendation .................................................................... 53

8.4.4. Advanced functionalities ........................................................................................ 55

8.5. User stories ................................................................................................................... 57

8.5.1. Social context.......................................................................................................... 57

8.5.2. Business and advertising ........................................................................................ 58

8.5.3. Design, control and recommendation .................................................................... 60

8.5.4. Advanced functionalities ........................................................................................ 62

8.6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 64



9. Combined Requirements ..................................................................................................... 67

9.1. Aggregation ................................................................................................................... 67

9.1.1. Procedure ............................................................................................................... 67

9.2. Results ........................................................................................................................... 68

9.2.1. UX ........................................................................................................................... 68

8 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


9.2.2. Time Shifting ........................................................................................................... 70

9.2.3. Added Value ........................................................................................................... 70

9.2.4. Future/Possibilities ................................................................................................. 72

9.3. List of Combined User Requirements ........................................................................... 73

10. 2nd iteration user requirements ......................................................................................... 75

10.1. Focus points for second iteration ............................................................................... 75

11. German Pilot Requirements – 2nd iteration ....................................................................... 75

11.1. Methods Used ............................................................................................................ 76

11.1.1. Overall structure of the interviews and main motivations .................................. 76

11.2. Participants ................................................................................................................. 77

11.3. Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 77

11.4. Results ........................................................................................................................ 77

11.4.1. Unclear Labelling .................................................................................................. 78

11.4.2. Unclear Relations ................................................................................................. 78

11.4.3. More Multimedia ................................................................................................. 78

11.4.4. Topic Preferences ................................................................................................. 79

11.4.5. Voting and Participation ....................................................................................... 79

11.5. Conclusions from second iteration ............................................................................. 79

11.5.1. List of user requirements from second iteration ................................................. 80

12. Dutch Pilot Requirements – 2nd iteration .......................................................................... 80

12.1. DRM Requirements .................................................................................................... 80

12.1.1. Methods Used ...................................................................................................... 80

12.1.1. Participants ........................................................................................................... 80

12.1. Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 81

12.2. Results ........................................................................................................................ 81

12.2.1. Many separate services ........................................................................................ 82

12.2.2. Not enough content ............................................................................................. 82

12.2.3. Content is not added fast enough ........................................................................ 83

12.2.4. High quality content is important ........................................................................ 83

12.3. List of DRM (Willingness-To-Pay) Requirements ........................................................ 83

12.4. Recommender Requirements – 2nd iteration ............................................................. 83

12.4.1. Methods Used ...................................................................................................... 83

12.4.2. Participants ........................................................................................................... 84

12.5. Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 84

12.6. Results ........................................................................................................................ 85

12.6.1. Type of content .................................................................................................... 85

9 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


12.6.2. Re-watching content ............................................................................................ 86

12.6.3. Sources people find to watch interesting content ............................................... 86

12.6.4. Typical viewing situations..................................................................................... 87

12.7. List of Recommender Requirements .......................................................................... 87

12.8. Second Screen – 2nd iteration ..................................................................................... 87

12.8.1. Methods Used ...................................................................................................... 88

12.8.2. Participants ........................................................................................................... 89

12.8.3. The games ............................................................................................................ 91

12.8.4. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 99

12.8.5. Results .................................................................................................................. 99

12.8.6. List of Second Screen Requirements .................................................................. 102

13. Spanish Pilot Requirements ............................................................................................. 103

13.1. Methods Used .......................................................................................................... 103

13.2. Participants ............................................................................................................... 104

13.3. Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 105

13.4. Results ...................................................................................................................... 105

13.4.1. Interaction and participation ............................................................................. 105

13.4.2. Content ............................................................................................................... 106

13.4.3. UX ....................................................................................................................... 107

13.4.4. Quality and performance ................................................................................... 108

13.5. Conclusions from Spanish pilot second iteration ..................................................... 108

13.5.1. List of professional requirements from second iteration .................................. 109

14. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 109

14.1. Impact on WP3 ......................................................................................................... 110

14.2. Impact of T2.2 Iteration 2 ......................................................................................... 110

15. Bibliography & References .............................................................................................. 111

16.1. German pilot ............................................................................................................. 112

16.2. Dutch pilot ................................................................................................................ 112

16.3. Spanish pilot ............................................................................................................. 112

10 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Table of Figures and other objects

Figure 1 Camera view from one of the observations. ................................................................. 27

Figure 2 Screenshot of the "De Ridder" app ............................................................................... 28

Figure 3 User requirements co-creation workshop .................................................................... 47

Figure 4 Workshop impression ................................................................................................... 68

Figure 5 Lab setup for seconds screen user test ......................................................................... 88

Figure 6 Attributes participants could use to create their game. ............................................... 89

Table 1 Participants Dutch Pilot .................................................................................................. 28

Table 2 Structure of ad-hoc user contextual interviews in Spanish pilot ................................... 46

Table 3 Structure of user requirements co-creation workshop in Spanish pilot ........................ 48

Table 4 Profile driven criteria for user selection in Spanish pilot ............................................... 49

Table 5 Participants overview Spanish pilot ............................................................................... 50

Table 6 Participants German Pilot Second Round ...................................................................... 77

Table 7 Participants Dutch DRM Interviews Second Round ....................................................... 81

Table 8 Participants Dutch Recommender Interviews Second Round ........................................ 84

Table 9 Participants Dutch Second Screen Tests Second Round ................................................ 89

Table 10 Overview of Game Elements Across All Games ........................................................... 98

Table 11 Structure of end user requirements workshop for 2nd iteration in Spanish pilot ...... 103

Table 12 End user interview profiles for 2nd iteration in Spanish Pilot .................................... 104

11 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


3. Introduction This deliverable presents the results of two iterations of requirements gathering in T2.2 (“End-user requirements”) of the TV-RING project, the first iteration from M1-M4, the second iteration from M13-M16. The goal of this task is to understand the users who will eventually use the applications and services that will be developed in the project, and use this to generate user requirements for their development. As the goal of the TV-RING project is to develop HbbTV applications, the people who will use the applications consist of a broad range of TV viewers, henceforth called “end-users”. Additionally, there are the people that ensure the coupling between the applications and the broadcast in the back-end, henceforth called “professional users”. This deliverable will only focus on end-user requirements. The professional requirements are gathered in T2.3 and are documented in D2.3.

As the TV-RING project consists of three pilots, in each iteration user requirements are gathered separately for each of the pilots. However, a general requirements gathering plan and methodology was created in order to streamline the process and make it possible to join the results of the three pilots. This plan was presented as a guide, which each of the pilots used as a basis for gathering end-user requirements. Depending on available expertise and local circumstances the final approach that was used differs slightly for each pilot. The general requirements gathering plan and methodology will be explained in section 5 (objectives), while the specific approach of each pilot and its results will be explained in the respective pilot sections. In section 9 the requirements from each pilot will be aggregated and a joint list of end-user requirements of the first iteration will be presented.

The end-user requirements were gathered in two iterations. The first iteration was executed from M1-M4; the second iteration was conducted from M13-M16. The results of the second iteration are described from section 10 to section 13.

12 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


4. Action Log

[15/10/2013] – Leuven, Belgium – iMinds|KU Leuven – Sent out “User Research Focus Points & Methods Guide”

[17/10/2013] – Barcelona, Spain – i2CAT, TVC – Online meeting to coordinate tasks

[18/10/2013] – Barcelona, Spain – TVC, RTV – Online meeting to coordinate tasks

[08/11/2013] – Potsdam, Germany – RBB – End user interview





[14/11/2013] – Barcelona, Spain – i2CAT – Subcontracting agreement for t2.2 user research logistics signed

[19/11/2013] – Veltem, Belgium – iMinds|KU Leuven – User interview after observation

[19/11/2013] – Tienen, Belgium – iMinds|KU Leuven – User interview after observation

[26/11/2013] – Kontich, Belgium – iMinds|KU Leuven – User interview after observation

[26/11/2013] – Landegem, Belgium – iMinds|KU Leuven – User interview after observation

[19/11/2013] – Beernem, Belgium – iMinds|KU Leuven – User interview after observation

[25/11/2013] – Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain – i2CAT – 5 user interviews carried out

[26/11/2013] – Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain – i2CAT – 4 user interviews carried out

[28/11/2013] – Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain – i2CAT – End user requirements workshop carried out

[18/12/2013] – Munich, Germany - All - Workshop with representatives from all pilots to aggregate the results.

[30/11/2014] – Dordrecht, The Netherlands – iMinds|KU Leuven – household interview

[30/11/2014] – Rotterdam, The Netherlands – iMinds|KU Leuven – household interview

[30/11/2014] – Amsterdam, The Netherlands – iMinds|KU Leuven – household interview

[1/12/2014] to [12/12/2014] – Leuven, Belgium – iMinds|KU Leuven – 10 Lab tests for the second screen pilot.

[13/12/2014] – Alkmaar, The Netherlands – iMinds|KU Leuven – household interview

[14/12/2014] – Wijckel, The Netherlands – iMinds|KU Leuven – household interview

[14/12/2014] – Rotterdam, The Netherlands – iMinds|KU Leuven – household interview

[14/12/2014] – Vlaardingen, The Netherlands – iMinds|KU Leuven – household interview

[13/01/2015] – Potsdam,Germany – RBB –Documentation of End User Requirements Interviews

[16/01/2015] – iMinds|KU Leuven – integrating input on 2nd iteration user requirements

13 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


5. Objectives

As stated in the introduction, the objective of T2.2 is to gather requirements from end-users of HbbTV applications to further their design and development. More specifically, we aim to understand the characteristics of interactive TV’s potential users, the environment in which the applications will be used, and the actions the users perform to reach their goals. This will give us information about the needs and wants of the target users, as well as specific insights into how to design a great HbbTV experience.

5.1. Focus points

Each pilot serves a different region, with local variations such as broadcasting history, technical capabilities and cultural background. Therefore, each pilot has different focus points that are used as a starting point for gathering user requirements. The focus points for each pilot were gathered by sending out a request to each partner to provide the focus points of their pilot.

The following focus points, formulated as questions, were collected:

German Pilot

• What do users expect from interactive TV to consider it valuable? • When do users consider the interactive TV service easy to use? • What kind of demands do the users put on the image quality of the TV signal?

Dutch Pilot

• How is the interaction between members of a household? • How do young people feel about serious programming (e.g. documentaries) and how

could we get them more involved? • How do people experience big live events like e.g. the Eurovision Song Contest?

Spanish Pilot

• What are the typologies of the end users for interactive TV? • How do we group and segment them?

• How do people watch TV (e.g. watch attentively or do other things at the same time) and does this relate to the type of program (drama, sports, live shows) they watch?

• What kind of content do viewers like the most and what are the features of this content (e.g. entertaining, informative)?

• When do they watch TV? • With whom do they watch TV? • How do all these factors interact?

Although the focus points of the three pilots are formulated differently, they are not mutually exclusive and share many aspects that will allow us to aggregate them to create joint requirements. While similar in nature, the focus points for each pilot have a different level of abstraction. The Spanish pilot has the most high-level view and focuses on who the end users are, what kind of content they watch and with whom they watch TV. The German pilot has a more specific focus and aims to look at the main qualities of interactive TV and the value end-users attach to it. Finally, the Dutch pilot has the most specific focus and wants to look at social interaction within the household, young people’s involvement with serious programming and the experience of big live events.

14 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


In summary, the focus points for the TV-RING project are the following three aspects:


What kind of quality do end users expect from interactive TV?

How can we design applications for specific target users or specific content types?

5.2. General requirements plan and methodology

Considering the focus points of the requirements the pilots want to gather from their end users, a solid research approach is needed. Before the individual pilots started their end-user research, they were all asked to list the methods they were planning to apply. This information was gathered by iMinds|KU Leuven so that all pilots would be aware of the other pilots’ approach ensuring cross fertilisation. A guide was created that listed the proposed methods and gave tips on applying them. The purpose of the guide was to give some more detailed information on the different methods and their application so that those who are unfamiliar with certain methods might find inspiration and opportunity to make use of them.

The first step in a human-centred design process is always learning about the target users. For T2.2 these are end users and it is very valuable to observe them in the environment they would normally interact with their (interactive) TV. Therefore contextual inquiry and more specifically observations and interviews on location are a good first step. As some pilots suggested making use of focus groups, literature research and prototyping, these methods were included in the following methods overview as well. All quotes come from the “Usewell” website, http://www.usewell.be/.

5.2.1. Literature research

Literature research and ethnographic studies can be a good first step to see what has been done before and could help to answer questions like what the typologies of our end users are, when and with whom they watch TV and what kind of content they like to watch and why.

5.2.2. Contextual Inquiry

A robust method to gather requirements is to visit some of these end users and observe how they watch (interactive) TV at the moment. This should answer at least in part how they watch TV, what the interaction is between the people who are watching TV and how they interact with the TV itself. Contextual Inquiry is well suited for this.

“Context Mapping (or Contextual Inquiry), is a way to gain a deep understanding about your users: what they do, what they need, want or expect, where they use your product and why they chose your product. Spending time with a real user reveals a deep understanding of their behaviour, their specific needs, problems, desires and motivations. The results of a site visit can be very rich and meaningful observations and insights that build a story of the participant and organisation within a given context. Context mapping allows for insight into the unexpected; alternative uses, homemade additions and unique conditions that in turn can be shared with the decision makers and design team. Although this method requires significant effort, the results offer very rich insights into your users.” (http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/context-mapping)

http://www.usewell.be/

http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/context-mapping

15 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


5.2.3. Interviews

These observations should be followed by interviews to gather more in depth information to answer when and with whom users watch TV, the kind of programs they like and why they like them, what they expect from interactive TV in terms of quality, ease of use and added value. More specific questions (depending on the type of user(s) that were observed) could deal with how young people feel about serious programming and how people experience big live events.

“An interview is a method for discovering facts and opinions held by potential or current users of the product or service. Structured, one-on-one interviews help researchers learn about users’ attitudes and beliefs surrounding a website or application and specific tasks that the website or application supports. In advance, a discussion guide, a list of questions that will be asked of participants in a particular order, is created, therefore preventing the researcher from introducing bias and to ensure that every participant is asked the same questions. Multiple interviews are best employed early in the design process in order to gain a more detailed understanding of a domain or area of activity or specific new requirements or as a means to gather feedback on a launched product or service.” (http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/interviews).

5.2.4. Focus Groups

Specific focus groups could help provide more detail on some of the more open questions like how young people feel about serious programming, how people experience big live events and what they consider to be added value when it comes to interactive TV. One has to keep in mind however that focus groups are held outside of the users’ natural environment, and claims about habits or (future) activities should be validated in a real life context.

“Focus groups can be an effective way to evaluate services or test new ideas. Basically a group discussion, one can get a great deal of information and insight during a focus group session. The focus group is made up of potential users, prospective users or current users of a product or service and this group setting allows for participants to respond and build on other people's suggestions or comments. Focus groups are often used in the early stages of development and are carried out in order to obtain feedback about users, products, concepts, prototypes, tasks, strategies, environments or specific issues. Conducting focus groups can help you evaluate the composition and needs of your target audience, enabling you to develop objectives and plan for their realisation.” (http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/focus-groups)

5.2.5. Prototyping

In the final stages of T2.2, the transition to rough prototyping could even be made. Rough prototypes are an excellent way to get your end users involved in your design/concept from the very early stages of development. It could help answer questions on specific concepts.

“Prototyping means gradually working out your ideas, from simple notes, paper sketches, mock-ups and wireframes on up to working, technical prototypes. Beginning with very simple materials such as paper and pencil has the advantage that you can work out your product details without spending time and money on manufacturing test products. The key to prototyping is iteration; changes can be made in little time and at almost no cost thus allowing for multiple rounds of trial and error. Once these early prototypes are refined, the prototype can be of higher-fidelity (a working prototype). Another benefit of prototyping is that you can show, discuss and evaluate these early solutions with every stakeholder, from internal members in the team to potential users.” (http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/prototyping)

http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/interviews

http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/focus-groups

http://www.usewell.be/#/methods/prototyping

16 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


6. German Pilot Requirements

This section describes the specific approach of gathering end-user requirements for the German pilot. The discussion starts with the specific user research methods used, and then introduces the participants that took part in the actions, and ends with the presentation of the research outcomes.

6.1. Methods Used

The German pilot focus is on the main qualities and attractiveness of HbbTV services and the quality level end users expect it to have. For the gathering of end user requirements in this first iteration of T2.2 we chose face-to-face individual interviews as the best suited method to learn more about their habits, expectations and potential difficulties they might encounter when using this services and applications.

For this purpose we structured our interviews in three sets of questions. The first set had the goal to explore the TV habits of the interviewees including where and when do they watch TV, which are their favourite programmes and with whom do they watch it. In the second set the focus was on the HbbTV services they actually use, for what purpose and their opinions on the quality and ease of use of these services. The final stage of the interview was centered on the user's wishes and demands on existing or future HbbTV services and applications. The questions that formed the basis of the semi-structured interview are listed below:

Environment - Ambience

Where do you watch TV?

With whom do you watch TV?

Which kind of TV contents do you like the most?

Motivations

Which feature/s of HbbTV do you use and for what purpose?

Which of this features/functionality makes it useful/valuable/attractive/ to you?

Expectations

What do you expect from HbbTV in terms of: - Ease of use - Quality - Performance

Which other services/features could be added to make HbbTV more helpful/attractive to you?

Is there something that could be changed or added that would make HbbTV more valuable/attractive to you?

The interviews were conducted in comfort areas on the RBB campus and structured according to the guidelines from the Interview Guide provided by partner KU Leuven (see Section 5.2.3). The answers and accompanying comments were originally written down on paper during the interviews and later documented in digital summaries (these are available in the annex).

17 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


6.2. Participants

The two most important criteria for the selection of our participants were the following: First, the potential interviewees must be familiar with HbbTV services, if possible persons who already own HbbTV 1.5 sets and use them on a frequently basis at home or at work. Furthermore, as spreading awareness for the potential of HbbTV is among the core objectives of the TV-RING project we decided to invite RBB affiliates for this first round of interviews. In recent years we realized that, contrary to common expectations, media people do not necessarily know much about the potential of interactive services in general and HbbTV in particular. In order to trigger a new understanding of and attitude towards transmedia services we decided to interview colleagues who work for RBB but who are not themselves involved in the production of HbbTV services. Although the number of potential interviewees who met the above criteria was small, we were able to select and interview five users (two women and three men, ages 30-50).

Table 1 Participants German Pilot

Participant Gender Age Profession

1 F 47 Manager

2 M 49 Online Editor

3 F 30 Online Editor

4 M 39 Online Producer

5 M 33 Engineer

6.3. Data analysis

After having processed all the interviews, the documented answers and comments of the interviewees were transferred into digital form. This raw data was handed over to a person not familiar with this requirements gathering. According to the content he grouped and assigned the data to categories, which are summarized in the following chapter.

6.4. Results

The results of the user research carried out in the German pilot can be grouped under the following main themes:

Interest in current interactive TV Services

All interviewees use frequently and are very fond of the Video on Demand services (“Mediathek” in German). The main reason is because they can watch their favourite programs when they want and have the time to, usually in the evenings when they arrive home after work. Regarding other programme-related services like EPG and digital text, although all of them were aware of their existence, only one of the interviewees used on a frequent basis

18 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


HbbTV digital text in order to get a quick overview of the news. Asked about which other services would be attractive and/or offer an added value for them, three of the interviewees indicated that they would like to use more interactive services like votings and other participation opportunities if (and only if) they are very simple to use.

Expectations towards future TV Services

All interviewees stated special interest in additional information, e.g. contextual background knowledge. Two of them pointed out that they would like to have the possibility of bookmarking interesting sequences in order to watch them again later or share it with other family members. Another two were interested in Social Media Streams, i.e. check what friends post about a programme or topic. Regarding which other kind of TV content they would like to have access to, two interviewees expressed their wish for more (VoD) content for kids and youth so they could watch TV together with their children more often. Concerning the quality of the current HbbTV services, especially the VoD services (“Mediathek”), all interviewees stated that the performance must be improved, video quality should be much better and/or selectable and all content should be available for a longer period.

User experience

Regarding navigation, usability and ease of use, all interviewees agreed that HbbTV interfaces and control systems must be easy to learn and easy to operate. They also pointed out that in order to achieve this the use of colour buttons and icons should be made more consistent. All of them stated that the use of a Remote Control is sometimes cumbersome and it should be more intuitive. Furthermore too much extra information on the TV screen was seen as disturbing and distracting by all the interviewees. Another important point on which all agreed was that the synchronisation between TV and Second Screen (for the available services) requires too many steps and too much time.

The following results show the requirement categories identified. Each requirement is

illustrated with a selection of the quotes that made up this category. The resulting

requirements are listed in a separate box.

6.4.1. Interaction and participation

Three of the interviewees clearly stated that they want to have more well known interactivity features.

“I would like to give my opinion on a topic which is being discussed on TV but only if I can do it directly on the TV screen” (Interviewee 5)

“It would be fun to check what friends post on Facebook or twitter about the program I’m watching” (Interviewee 3)

“If there is an easy and quick way to vote on an interesting topic on TV I would sure use it a lot” (Interviewee 1)

This points out to the fact that, in order to meet the end users’ demands, it is crucial to introduce additional features, which in a familiar way enable users to interact with a service. Thus, the impression of “taking part” in the show can be triggered in audiences, leading to higher satisfaction with the service.

19 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Req.21 Possibility to vote easily and directly on TV screen Req.22 Integration of social media streams

6.4.2. Content

Three of the interviewees want to see improvements regarding the variety, availability and presentation of on-demand content.

“It’s a pity that my favorite series are sometimes available only for a short time but I don’t know for how long” (Interviewee 3)

“I would like to be informed of how long a movie or a series is going to be available in the Mediathek” (Interviewee 4)

“I wish I could watch TV together with my kids when I arrive home from work but there is very few on demand content for kids” (Interviewee 1)

“It would be great if I could have a list of favorites and bookmark the content that I would like to watch later” (Interviewee 3)

It becomes clear that on-demand content needs to be improved. Content provision must be broader in genres and videos must be available for a longer period. The service must enable users to be informed about desired content and to retrieve later.

Req.23 Content should be available for a longer period Req.24 Notifications on availability of content Req.25 More on Demand content for kids Req.26 Bookmarking interesting content

6.4.3. UX

Two of the interviewees criticise the lack of clarity in current HbbTV applications know to them.

“Sometimes I don’t have the patience to find my way through the applications, it would be very helpful if they will use more icons instead of colors or make them more consistent” (Interviewee 1)

“To be well informed is very important for my job that’s why I wish more in-depth and detailed information on a topic but when too much of it is displayed on the TV screen is very disturbing and distracts me” (Interviewee 2)

A clear requirement that comes out of these kinds of statements is that users are looking for improvements on ease of use, and consistency within said HbbTV services. Rules of simplicity must be met, especially regarding the reduced usage patterns of TV sets (arrow keys mainly). In special, presentation of on-screen information must be clear and proper in quantity, to avoid overwhelming the user.

Req.27 Heterogeneous use of colour buttons and icons should be more consistent Req.28 Navigation should be made easier and more intuitive Req.29 Too much extra information on the TV screen is disturbing and should be displayed on

2nd Screen

20 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


6.4.4. Quality and performance (VoD)

Two of the users interviewed expect to get better video quality with regards to their perception of the image quality and video buffer-induced delays.

“Video quality is not always good enough and it would be great if you could select it” (Interviewee 5)

“Sometimes the video quality is so poor or you have to wait so long that it doesn’t make fun anymore” (Interviewee 4)

In order to improve video quality it is necessary to utilise more efficient video encoding algorithms and workflows. This counts for HbbTV video player implementations as well as offering the end user a selection of different levels of video quality.

Req.30 The video quality should be much better and/or selectable

21 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


6.5. User stories

6.5.1. Interaction and Participation

User story As a viewer I would like to participate and give my opinion

Category/topic/context Added value, Interaction, Participation

Owner(s)/contacts Program makers, editors

Abstract By offering the audience an easy to use application to vote on topics of special interest (e.g. breaking news) or events.

Detailed description From the interviews with the end users it becomes clear, that having an easy and intuitive application which they use to express their opinion on a relevant topic or event would be a motivation for them to interact and get more involved with the TV program

Justification for

inclusion

For program makers it would be a way of increasing audience engagement and motivation

User story As a viewer I would like to share my interests about TV programs with my friends and contacts

Category/topic/context Added value, Interaction, Participation

Owner(s)/contacts Program makers, editors

Abstract By integrating well-known social media channels like Facebook and Twitter in the interactive TV application

Detailed description Connecting and interacting in social media networks is something which all the end users interviewed are familiar with and enjoy to do. Giving them the possibility to use them in connection to the program would encourage them to comment and share their opinions in this networks.

Furthermore if they have the opportunity to comment, recommend or share with friends in a very simply, direct way without having to start a second application or use a second screen, the probability of getting distracted from the TV main show/program could be decreased.

Justification for

Inclusion

For program makers it would be a very simple tool to get feedback from the audience and to help spread the popularity of the program.

Program makers and editors want to focus audience’s attention on the

22 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


program itself. If the end-users must use more than one application or device in order to satisfy their needs that would mean losing the viewer’s attention.

6.5.2. Content

User story As an end user I need to be updated on availability of on-demand content

Category/topic/context Added value, Content

Owner(s)/contacts Program makers, content producers, editors

Abstract By offering the viewers on-demand content which better fits their needs and keeping them updated on its availability

Detailed description From the interviews with the end users it becomes clear that on-demand content is extremely popular and it would be even more if viewers knew when, for how long and which kind of content is going to be available.

Furthermore offering more on-demand content for kids and youth would widen the audience by giving them the opportunity to watch TV together with their children or with friends.

Justification for

Inclusion

For program makers it would bring an increase in the number of viewers and of the audience loyalty.

6.5.3. UX

User story An end-user needs to be able to use interactive TV applications as easily and intuitive as possible

Category/topic/context Usability, Navigation, UX

Owner(s)/contacts Program makers, content producers, editors, application developers

Abstract By developing interactive TV applications which are consistent in their use of icons, colours, menus, buttons and thereby easy to learn and more intuitive to use.

Detailed description From the interviews with the end-users it becomes clear that they would use more interactive TV applications and more often if it doesn’t require too many steps to learn how to use them.

23 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Justification for

Inclusion

For program makers it would mean an increment in the number of interactive TV users. For application developers the creation of standards and UX guidelines for developing future interactive TV applications would reduce development costs.

User story A viewer wants to watch a TV program without being distracted by too many additional information

Category/topic/context Usability, UX

Owner(s)/contacts Program makers, editors, content producers, application developers

Abstract By displaying program related content and additional information in a way that is not too intrusive or disturbing for the viewer (e.g. on a second screen)

Detailed description End-users expressed a real interest on related content and additional information but they don’t want to be disturbed with too much extra information or become too distracted from the show they are watching, instead they would prefer to view this kind of content on a second screen.

Justification for

Inclusion

For program makers it would help on holding the viewer’s attention on main program/show. Furthermore by delivering a more enjoyable user experience the number of users of interactive TV and the time they spent would increase.

6.5.4. Quality and performance

User story An end-user wants the best possible video quality that her/his network connection can support

Category/topic/context Quality, Performance

Owner(s)/contacts Content producers

Abstract By providing several different formats and quality controls so that the service can be viewed on many different devices

24 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Detailed description Offering the audience the best possible quality and the possibility to choose between different formats depending on which device they use and thereby most suitable for their needs.

Justification for

Inclusion

Providing the best possible video quality results in a better user experience and an increment in the number of viewers.

6.6. Conclusions

The conclusions from the first iteration of user research could be summarized as follows: End-users are really keen of on-demand content because they can watch what they want whenever they want to. Other interactive TV services and applications which already exist are not so attractive and popular because their use is not intuitive or easy enough, it takes too much time or too many steps for a new user to get familiar with the application.

6.6.1. List of User Requirements

Req.21 Possibility to vote easily and directly on TV screen

Req.22 Integration of social media streams

Req.23 Content should be available for a longer period

Req.24 Notifications on availability of content

Req.25 More on Demand content for kids

Req.26 Bookmarking interesting content

Req.27 Heterogeneous use of colour buttons and icons should be more consistent

Req.28 Navigation should be made easier and more intuitive

Req.29 Too much extra information on the TV screen is disturbing and should be displayed on 2nd Screen

Req.30 The video quality should be much better and/or selectable

6.6.2. List of User Stories

Interaction and participation

- As a viewer I would like to participate and give my opinion

- As a viewer I would like to share my interests about TV programs with my friends and contacts.

25 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Content

- As an end user I need to be updated on availability of on-demand content.

UX

- An end-user needs to be able to use interactive TV applications as easily and intuitive as possible.

- A viewer wants to watch a TV program without being distracted by too much additional information.

Quality and performance

- As an end-user, I want second screen content to provide me with something extra to what you see on the TV show.

- As an end-user, I want the second screen to provide me with easy access to information related to the TV show but not the story.

- As an end-user, I want polls with interesting non-trivial topics and I want my answers to have an impact.

26 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


7. Dutch Pilot Requirements

This section describes the specific approach of gathering end-user requirements for the Dutch pilot. We will first describe which specific methods were being used, and how this fits in the general plan and methodology, as well as the participants that took part in this process. We will then present our results.

Although the requirements are gathered for the Dutch pilot, the study took place in Belgium with Belgian users from the region of Flanders. As Flemish is a local variant of Dutch, it is essentially the same language. As a neighbouring country, Belgium also shares a lot of cultural aspects with The Netherlands. We therefore do not expect large differences in user requirements for both countries.

7.1. Methods Used The method used in the Dutch pilot was a contextual inquiry with observation in the natural environment of the users (see Section 5.2.2) followed by an in-depth interview (see Section 5.2.3). To get a detailed picture of how people experience interactive TV in a social context, we recruited five couples and observed them in their own home environment while they were watching a television show and using a second screen application (i.e. an application that can be used on a laptop, tablet or smart phone in conjunction with the television program).

A camera was placed in their home before the day of the show, so no researcher had to be present. This was done to minimize the intrusion for the participants and to have them watch as naturally as possible. For the same reason, the participants were instructed to watch the show and use the second screen application, as they would normally do. The researcher placed the camera in an angle that would give the best view of the users, their devices and their immediate surroundings (see Figure 1 for an impression of the observation setup). It was not necessary to see the TV screen or second screen on the recordings, as the main focus of the observations was on the interaction in the household. One or two days after the show the researcher returned to collect the footage and watch the recording together with the participant(s) using event-triggered retrospective think aloud. This means that when specific events took place in the recording, such as interaction with the second screen device or social interaction between the participants, the researcher asked if the participants could clarify what they were doing and why. This in-depth interview lasted around two hours per couple. The full audio and text excerpts from the interviews can be found in the annex.

27 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Figure 1 Camera view from one of the observations.

The show that was selected is a Belgian drama series about a young prosecutor called “De Ridder”. This show was selected because it launched a few weeks before the observations started, it was a highly anticipated and well-watched show (over 1.2 million viewers, http://www.vrt.be/nieuws-over-vrt/kijk-en-luistercijfers) and it prominently featured a newly developed second screen experience (available at the time of writing at http://deridder.een.be/). The second screen application features a timeline that shows new content related to the television show as the program progresses. This content can be quotes from the show, polls which users can respond to, information about specific terms used in the show, maps of the location of characters which the users can interact with, etc. All types of content can be ‘liked’ in the application or shared via Facebook or Twitter. Figure 2 shows a screenshot of the app.

http://www.vrt.be/nieuws-over-vrt/kijk-en-luistercijfers

http://deridder.een.be/

28 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Figure 2 Screenshot of the "De Ridder" app

7.2. Participants Because the goal was to observe viewers in their natural environment while watching as they always do, participants had to be regular viewers of “De Ridder” and already be users of the second screen application while watching the show. Participants were selected by placing recruitment messages on Twitter, Facebook and the research and innovation page of the website of the broadcaster of the show, Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) (http://deproeftuin.vrt.be/).

We received 18 applications. From these applications five households were selected based on availability and household composition. We opted to focus on the interaction between couples while watching TV with a second screen, as we want to focus on social interaction and it was easier to compare between the different participants. Participants were therefore all couples, (average age 33,6, σ = 4.98) some of which with young children who were not old enough to watch the show with their parents (see Table 1). All couples were regular viewers of “De Ridder” and all of them consistently watched the show with a second screen, either on a laptop or a tablet.

Table 1 Participants Dutch Pilot

Couple Gender Age Profession

1 M 35 Entrepreneur online

communication

F 39 Bank clerk

http://deproeftuin.vrt.be/

29 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


2 M 43 Teacher

F 40 Teacher

3 M 30 Designer/Researcher

F 30 Speech therapist

4 M 29 IT developer

F 29 Teller

5 M 31 Civil servant

F 30 Teller

7.3. Data analysis The data gathered from the observations were processed in a workshop with two of the partners involved in the Dutch pilot (NPO and iMinds/KU Leuven). The data gathered consists of videos of the couples watching “De Ridder” while using a second screen, annotations to this video made when watching the recording together with the couples and audio recordings of the interview that followed after watching the recording.

All this data was transcribed and gathered in one document per couple. These documents were used as the basis for the workshop. During the workshop the researchers singled out all relevant quotes and observations from the data and turned them into snippets (individual notes). These snippets were then grouped according to their content. The emerging groups were given a name, which resulted in a number of categories. When all snippets were allotted to a category the categories were reviewed and an appropriate main/sub category structure was created.

7.4. Results

The following results show the requirement categories as they emerged during the workshop. For each requirement a short explanation is given and it is illustrated with a selection of the quotes that made up this category. The resulting requirements are numbered and listed in a separate box.

7.4.1. Usability

Usability refers to the ease of use and the overall experience of the interactive TV application. One thing that was very clear from our interviews is the importance of a low threshold to start using an application. Accounts for instance are a big inconvenience and enough to scare people away:

30 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


“An account would be a threshold. What is keeping me a little from using the app of “Ook Getest Op Mensen1” is that you have to create an account or a profile first” (Couple 3)

“You don’t have to create an account or anything.” (Couple 3)

Furthermore people seem to really appreciate an app that looks good, works without hiccups and that shows effort has been put into it:

“It is well made and it looks good. It also functions, that is positive and makes you use it the next time again. If that would not have been the case we would stop using it very fast.” (Couple 5)

“It’s quite good on a technical level. Recently I wanted to participate in a contest from another show, but their website was so overloaded that it didn’t work. Then you are done with it very quickly. With ‘De Ridder’ everything runs very fast and it’s robust, that is important.” (Couple 1)

In conclusion it is clear that for end-users to start using an interactive TV application it is very important that it has a very low threshold to get it running. To make sure they keep using it, robustness and ease of use are indispensible.

Req.01 Interactive TV applications should have a very low threshold to get users started. Req.02 For continued use, robustness and ease of use are indispensible.

7.4.2. Synchronicity

Synchronicity covers everything related to timing. We distinguish three types of synchronicity: (1) live synchronisation between the app and the TV show during the broadcast; (2) delayed viewing when users watch the broadcast in a time-shifted mode; and (3) review content where users watch the content of the second screen app after the show has ended.

7.4.2.1. Live synchronisation

This category deals with synchronisation between the app and the show while watching the show live. Participants like the updates that are really synced up well with the show a lot.

“If she gets a text on the show, you can immediately see the contents of it on the second screen. That’s a well thought out feature.” (Couple 4)

It also becomes clear that bad syncing immediately has effects, as we observed when a poll comes up too late for Couple 1 and the answer to the question was already given on the show. From this it can be concluded that correct synchronisation is important for the correct enjoyment of the app because a delayed poll is mostly useless. But clever synchronisation can also be an added value as demonstrated by the text messages.

Req.03 Perfect synching between multiple screens is essential for a good user experience.

7.4.2.1. Delayed viewing

Many participants expressed that they watch most programs delayed through digital recordings.

1 A show that polls the Flemish population and lets you answer the polls in the app yourself

31 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


“During the week we almost never watch TV live” (Couple 4)

The ‘De Ridder’ app has to be used live for the updates to automatically appear synchronised with the show. Participants expressed that they would prefer it if they could also use it in this way with delayed viewings. They all watch the show live now but mostly because it is on a convenient timeslot (Sunday 21:30) and not because they consider this live experience important enough.

“A disadvantage is that you only get the ‘live experience’ when you watch the show live. If you record it you lose the synchronicity.” (Couple 1)

“The second screen app synchronisation is not really a reason to watch live. Delayed viewing is just more convenient. It starts and stops when you like and you can fast-forward through commercials.” (Couple 5)

What we learned from this is that viewers record most shows they watch and an interactive TV app would have to bring a lot of added value for them not to use this feature, so it is better to have it work fully for recorded shows as well.

Req.04 Make sure interactive TV apps function just as well on delayed viewing.

7.4.2.2. Review second screen content (after show)

People like the fact that the updates are ‘permanent’ and you can look them up at any time during the show.

“What’s good about it is the permanence so you can scroll back during the show.” (Couple 3)

The man from couple 2 scrolls back through the app content when the show ‘slows down’ a bit:

“Sometimes I return to the info updates. You can expand them, so sometimes I go back and look at those when it slows down.” (Couple 2)

However, they usually do not look at the updates after the show has ended. The updates ‘live’ for them as long as the show lasts.

“It might be something we would watch back after the show (talking about an update with a small video). But we didn’t because you don’t think about it anymore. If we would we might have watched it.”(Couple 5)

Interviewer: “Do you review the content when the show is done?” “Maybe for a few minutes at the end but not a lot longer. Mostly just until the credits have run.” (Couple 4)

The lesson learned here is that viewers seem to appreciate the fact that they can watch back content at their leisure, but they are not prone to use the interactive app after the show has finished.

Req.05 Make sure existing content can be reviewed during the show Req.06 If you want viewers revisiting the content, provide added value beyond the show.

7.4.3. Social interaction

Social interaction is interaction that occurs between the people watching the show in the same room as well as the interaction between the viewers and people not in the room, be it through the app or via a different medium like Facebook or Twitter.

32 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


7.4.3.1. Interaction in the living room

For some couples the updates on the second screen often lead to a comment or discussion. Especially the polls lead to brief conversations.

M: “It absolutely increases the amount of social interaction. Like with the polls I always communicate them to V as well as the percentages after voting. Or like with the information updates or that map that we discuss them briefly.” (Couple 1)

F: “It does lead to a bit more interaction because I ask what he would vote for.” (Couple 4)

In the household of Couple 2, an info update on a court term (“slachtofferstatuut”) leads to a discussion, as do most polls and info updates.

For others this wasn’t the case. However the main reason for this was that they thought the topics of the updates were not interesting enough for them, or they feel it has no impact.

“M: It makes no difference what you answer nothing changes. It is just a poll and that is it.” (Couple 5)

“It doesn’t really add to the social interaction between us” (Couple 3)

It is hard to predict if an interactive TV app will lead to more interaction between the people in the same room. For some couples this was the case but not for others. The deciding factor seems to be the amount of interest in the updates that are presented to them.

Req.07 To stimulate interaction in the living room, provide polarizing or controversial topics

7.4.3.2. External interaction

The app for “De Ridder” has integrated features to share each update through Twitter or Facebook. However, the participants we interviewed didn’t find this a very appealing feature, or at least not one they would readily use.

M: “The sharing or like features are not something we would quickly use. For actualities this might be the case or with “Eigen Kweek” (a Flemish comedy drama) because the updates there are very funny sometimes.” F: “It has no added value for me, I have never done it so far.” (Couple 5)

“I even find it irritating when others do that [use the share function]. It’s just not something that I think is interesting for friends.” (Couple 4)

When Twitter or Facebook are used during TV watching, the conversations usually do not relate to the show. An exception seems to be news and actualities when opinions are sometimes shared. The value of share features seems to very much depend on the content of the show.

Req.08 The value of social media features in an interactive TV app is dependent on the shows genre.

7.4.4. Attention

This requirement deals with attention for the second screen, both for the “De Ridder” app and other apps or pages that are used on the second screen while watching the show. It also relates to the ‘fight’ for attention between the TV and the app. Finally, it deals with the question whether it engages viewers more or whether the app distracts them.

33 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


7.4.4.1. Attention second screen, “de Ridder”

Every participant seems to appreciate the timer that indicates when the next update is going to be shown. There is also a sound to call the attention of the viewer to the app if there is an update but most of the participants had the sound of their device switched off. The advantage of the timer is that people know how long it will take before the next update will come and can plan accordingly. One participant even waited to go check on their child that was calling her because an update was very close. The male from couple 1 glances at the tablet now and then to see if there is an update. When he does, he specifically pays attention to the time indicator. Also couple 3 keeps checking how far the time indicator is to the next update. The sound indicator is used often to know if there is a new update but the time indicator is also very convenient to know how close the next update is. Some participants would prefer other means of notification.

“A vibration function might also be handy.” (Couple 5)

Another interesting observation was the fact that people were starting to use events on the show as triggers to look for updates on the app. If a character on the show gets a text message or a phone call, the app usually gives an update with the contents of the text message or an indication of who is calling. Some participants started to look immediately at the app when a character received a text message and they were even slightly disappointed when there was no accompanying update on the app. In all of those instances, the participants did not use the timer indication for checking if there was a new update.

“You heard the text message on the TV and it showed up on the second screen, it’s a reflex. If the cell phone goes off on TV, you can see what the message is.” (Couple 4)

“I notice that if I hear a text message on TV, I immediately look for an update.” (M, Couple 4)

A good indication of when an update has arrived is important. Moreover people seem to appreciate an indication of how long it will take for the next update to appear. The in-app sound and timer seem to be good solutions for this. However, as can be seen from the text message examples, there might also be opportunities to use cues in the show itself to draw attention to the second screen in a more natural way.

Req.09 Give a clear indication when new content is available on the second screen as well as how much time there is before the next update.

Req.10 If possible use cues on the show to call attention to updates on the second screen (e.g text messages and phone calls).

7.4.4.1. Attention second screen, external

Usually, one partner of the couple was holding or controlling the second screen device. From the participants that were holding the second screen device, most switched from the “De Ridder” app to a different application (Facebook or email for instance) on occasion. The reason they gave for this was usually a mutual slowdown in both the show itself and the updates in the app. Couple 3 sometimes switches to a forum or Facebook when nothing much is happening on the show and the second screen.

“If there is nothing happening for a while I tend to switch to something else. You might miss some updates then, because you don’t switch back to the app in time.” (Couple 5)

The lesson learned from the behaviour of the couples in this test is that they are prone to switching to different unrelated apps if the combination of show and second screen does not

34 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


take up their full attention. It also shows that even with a show and second screen activity going on they still have ‘attention to spare’ for other activities.

Req.11 Keep the user engaged by maintaining a high enough level of activity on first and second screen combined

7.4.4.2. Distraction vs. Engagement

When it comes to the ‘battle between the screens’, the main focus for participants seems to still be on the program itself.

“Our initial focus is still on the show itself” (Couple 3)

Even though there are comments that some extensive updates like long info blocks have too much content, people seem to apply a form of self-regulation in order not to get distracted. When they know a certain update has so much content that it would distract them, they tend to skip that update or just glance over it. A special case is that videos can be watched on the second screen, which offers a conflict in type of content:

“I didn’t open the movie (update) because then you would be watching two videos at the same time.” (Couple 5)

“If we would want to watch these videos, you should actually stop the episode. What would be nice is that if you click the video on the second screen, the show on TV would be paused.” (Couple 5)

Some admit there is a certain level of distraction but they do not mind it depending on what they are watching.

“The information updates can be a bit more distracting. The second screen can lead to some distraction but it’s not a David Lynch film you are watching so you don’t need 200% attention. So does it distract? Yes, maybe a little. But is that a problem? No.” (Couple 1)

What people do not like is being taken out of the app, as it breaks their experience:

“We once clicked through for the interactive map, but then you break out of the app. That is a pity and then you’re messing with the tablet. It’s hard to really get something out of that. In the end I think the overview map is sufficient to situate where it is.” (Couple 5)

There are also participants that claim they are more engaged with the show thanks to the extra second screen experience because they would use things like Facebook, Twitter or email otherwise.

“With the second screen app you are less distracted by email and Facebook and more concentrated on the story.” (F, Couple 2) “I think it keeps you more attentive. It does for me at least.” (M, Couple 2)

In conclusion, it is apparent that the distraction versus engagement for the two screens is a complicated matter. Participants say their main focus is still on the TV show but they also admit being distracted from it sometimes. Furthermore, by offering a second screen experience as accompaniment to the show some viewers claim to be less prone to use unrelated apps like Twitter or Facebook.

Req.12 Do not break out of the app Req.13 Carefully balance the activity on first and second screen so they don’t interfere

35 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


7.4.5. Added Value

Added value is about all the things that viewers say that the “De Ridder” app adds to the viewing experience. This category is split in the types of updates that are provided throughout the app: character quotes, advertisement, information that is not story related, polls, and extra content that is story related.

7.4.5.1. Character quotes

Character quotes are quotes made by the characters on the show accompanied by a picture of that character. The consensus among all participants is that, although these updates don’t bother them, they also bring very little added value. Only very funny quotes are sometimes appreciated.

“Quotes don’t have a lot of added value for us. Maybe if they would be really funny.” (Couple 5) “Are they bothersome then?” (Interviewer) “No not really bothersome but a bit lame.” (Couple 5)

“Those I don’t find particularly interesting do you?” (M, Couple 2) “Sometimes” (F, Couple 2) “If it is a funny quote it can be ok.” (M, Couple 2)

Although presenting quotes from the characters is specific to this show, as a general requirement it shows that people expect their content to give something extra and not just repeat something from the television show.

Req.14 Provide something extra and do not just repeat something from the television show.

7.4.5.2. Advertisement

A second screen also offers possibilities for advertisement. You can simply add advertisement updates. In this app, the first update before the show starts is always a Samsung SmartTV advertisement. However, as one participant mentions, you could also have interesting information updates that double as advertisements.

[A quaint looking bicycle is featured on the show] “It could be very interesting to make advertisement for something like that. By giving an update explaining what kind of bike it was exactly and where it is for sale. I would have liked to know what kind of bike it was.” (M) “Would you also appreciate that?” (interviewer) “I’m not sure.” (F) “I would, but not for everything. Not for the coffee they are drinking or something, but for interesting products like the bike for instance I would find it interesting.” (M) (Couple 2)

One update with a Google map with the location of a restaurant where characters had dinner is studied intensely by couple 4.

“Because it was a restaurant where we wanted to go for dinner already.” (Couple 4)

This requirement shows that interactive TV opens up new possibilities for advertisements and even ones that have an added benefit for the viewer as well. This is nicely demonstrated by the bike and restaurant quotes above. Especially with people recording most of the TV shows they watch and consecutively fast forwarding through the commercials, new ways of advertisement that viewers enjoy can be very interesting for program makers as well.

Req.15 Provide advertisements on the second screen that are linked to the content of the TV program

36 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


7.4.5.3. Information (not story related)

Non-story related information updates are updates that provide information for the user that comes up in the show but isn’t directly story related. In “De Ridder”, these are often explanations of legal terms, information on music played, or updates with maps from the locations that are visited in the show. These updates are appreciated a lot by the participants. Care has to be taken that updates are not so content heavy that they become distracting because then viewers just seem to ignore the updates.

“With information updates it depends on the content. If we don’t know the term, it is interesting and we will at least read the ‘basic part’ (info updates usually have a short description of the term and foldout with more elaborate information). It is a good feature in any case.” (M, Couple 5)

A character hums a song and an update follows on the second screen with a picture of Johnny Cash and the name of the song.

“I really enjoyed that update. I just knew the version from Hank Williams. So the second screen was educational in that I found out Johnny Cash also performs that song.” (Couple 1)

Some participants also mentioned that they would not mind even more information that isn’t directly story related, like information on actors. A recurring discussion between many of the couples would be about an actors name or where they had seen him/her before.

At a certain moment, an actress comes on screen. She is recognized but they are not quite sure from where they know her. The male from couple 1 tries to look up the actress via IMDB but he does not succeed.

Interviewer: “Would it be nice to have this type of information as an update?” “Yes maybe it would. It might not be directly related to the show, but I will try and look it up anyway. Maybe if the information was in an extra ‘tab’ that would be available during the whole show that would be nice.” (Couple 1)

“Updates about actors would be more interesting than the quotes for instance. Where do you recognize them from, what is their name again, etc. It wouldn’t matter to me if those updates were in the stream or a separate tab.” (F, Couple 5)

The conclusion that can be drawn from this information is that non-story related info can be very interesting for people. It can provide them with facts they didn’t know before or things they would be likely to look up themselves. In both cases it delivers added value to the viewer.

Req.16 Provide viewers with easy in-app access to info that can be found elsewhere on the internet (e.g. information about actors)

7.4.5.4. Polls

Polls ask the viewers to select from two possible answers. The questions are directly related to the story. They can be answered immediately afterwards in the show (e.g. “Will this character’s car start?”) or they can be more of an opinion type question (e.g. “Is the sentence these characters received fair?”). The polls cause mixed reactions. Some participants thought the questions were mostly uninteresting, while for others they lead to a short debate nearly every time.

“The polls are fun and lead to discussion and debates.” (Couple 2)

“It is fun to see how the votes are distributed for each poll.” (Couple 4)

37 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


A poll at the start of the show asks if the main character should continue with the case or not.

“Of course she will continue, that is the whole show. I click yes anyway but I don’t really find it interesting.” (Couple 3)

“The polls would be more interesting if they were really interactive, they would really have an impact (on the show) then. But now it doesn’t really matter, does it.” (Couple 5)

The thing to take away here is that some participants enjoy the polls because they lead to discussion and it is interesting to see how opinions vary. Others find that the questions posed weren’t really interesting or they were disappointed that they didn’t have any real impact. It is important to think about the questions that are used in the polls so they are more than filler and it would be very interesting to find a way in which polls could have an actual impact.

Req.17 When asking viewers for input on polls make sure the question is non-trivial and is likely to split the viewers in their responses.

Req.18 When asking viewers for input try to have their answer have an impact.

7.4.5.5. Extra Content (story related)

Story related extra content are updates like text messages that you can hear characters receive and respond to, but that don’t get their content shown on TV. It also includes pictures from legal files, characters’ Facebook status updates or (fake) newspaper articles about the events in the show. This type of updates is in general very much appreciated by the participants.

“What I really enjoyed were the updates with text messages or telephone messages of the characters. Those are interesting because you get to know a bit more than just from the TV.” (F, Couple 5)

There is an update with a fictitious newspaper article related to the events in the show.

“I thought that was really fun, it is completely fictitious but it makes everything just a tad more real. Fun extra information. It also looked like a real online article from ‘Het Nieuwsblad’2.” (Couple 1)

“What we like are extras besides the show, like the text messages from one character to another or Facebook status updates from the characters.” (Couple 2)

Some of these updates are skipped however because they seem too long to read or just not

very interesting. For example, as a fake newspaper article appears the male from couple 4

looks at it and reads the title but doesn’t read the article itself because it was kind of small and

not easily readable.

What seems to be appreciated most by the participants is the extra content and information

they receive that they would not have had if they only watched the show. This has clear added

value for them. Care has to be given not to make these too complex however and not every bit

of information might be as interesting to everyone.

2 A Belgian newspaper

38 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Req.19 Provide viewers with extra info related to the show that they would not receive when

watching the show without the interactive TV app.

Req.20 When creating info updates for interactive TV apps make sure these updates are not

so complex viewers get distracted from the show if they want to ‘consume’ these

updates.

7.5. User stories

7.5.1. Usability

User story As an end-user I want threshold free robust and easy to use HbbTV/Interactive TV apps.

Category/topic/context Usability, UX, Synchronisation

Owner(s)/contacts App developers, Program makers

Abstract It is clear that for end-users to start using an interactive TV application it is very important that it has a very low threshold to get it running. To make sure they keep using it, robustness and ease of use are indispensible.

Detailed description One thing that was very clear from our interviews is the importance of a low threshold to start using an application. Accounts for instance are a big inconvenience and enough to scare people away. Furthermore people seem to really appreciate an app that looks good, works without hiccups and that shows effort has been put into it. It also becomes clear that bad syncing immediately has effects, as we observed when a poll comes up too late for Couple 1 and the answer to the question was already given on the show.

Justification for

Inclusion

The main thing for HbbTV is for users to start and keep using the app. The above is essential for this goal.

User story As an end-user I want HbbTV/Interactive TV apps to offer the same experience during delayed viewing as on live broadcasts.

Category/topic/context Usability, UX, Delayed viewing


Abstract Viewers want to watch what they want when they want for apps to be

39 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


successful they have to make this possible.

Detailed description Viewers record most shows they watch and an HbbTV/interactive TV app would have to bring a lot of added value for them not to use this feature, so it is better to have it work fully for recorded shows as well.

Justification for

Inclusion

The main thing for HbbTV is for users to start and keep using the app. The above is essential for this goal.

User story As a program maker I want viewers to come back to my app outside of the shows running time.

Category/topic/context Usability, Review outside broadcast


Abstract Program makers would like viewers to use their apps even outside of the shows running time.

Detailed description Viewers usually do not look at the apps after the show has ended. The content ‘lives’ for them as long as the show lasts. Program makers would like to change this but to do this the app would have to offer the viewers a lot of added value beyond the show.

Justification for

Inclusion

If viewers use the app even when the show is not on, they will keep using it more reliably.

7.5.2. Social Interaction

User story As a program maker I want my apps to stimulate user interaction so they will become more engaged with the show.

Category/topic/context Social, Interaction


Abstract Program makers would like their apps to stimulate social interaction in viewers, which in turn would increase user engagement and involvement with the show.

Detailed description Stimulating user interaction be it interaction in the household or through the social media can increase their engagement and involvement with

40 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


the show. This would in turn make them more reliable viewers, which is what all program makers want.

Justification for

Inclusion

If viewers of the app become more engaged with the show, they will keep watching it.

7.5.3. Attention

User story As an end-user I want to know when new content is available on a second screen so I can focus on the main screen in between.

Category/topic/context Attention, Second screen


Abstract When using second screen viewers want clear indications. Not only when new content is available but also when the next update will come.

Detailed description Every participant seems to appreciate the timer that indicates when the next update is going to be shown. There is also a sound to call the attention of the viewer to the app if there is an update but most of the participants had the sound of their device switched off. The advantage of the timer is that people know how long it will take before the next update will come and can plan accordingly.

Justification for

Inclusion

If viewers know when updates will arrive they do not constantly have to check the second screen and can keep their focus on the first.

User story As a program maker, I want to make sure the amount of updates viewers is sufficient and well balanced between first and second screen.

Category/topic/context Attention, Distraction, Second screen


Abstract It is important not to overwhelm viewers with content but also provide enough to keep them engaged. The balance between first and second screen activity should also be taken into account.

Detailed description The lesson learned from the behaviour of the couples in the observation, is that they are prone to switching to different unrelated apps if the

41 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


combination of show and second screen does not take up their full attention. It also shows that even with a show and second screen activity going on they still have ‘attention to spare’ for other activities. The distraction versus engagement for the two screens is a complicated matter. Participants say their main focus is still on the TV show but they also admit being distracted from it sometimes.

Justification for

Inclusion

If the amount of content is too high, viewers start to miss updates plot points. If it is too low, viewers become bored and start doing other activities like Facebook and Twitter.

7.5.4. Added Value

User story As an end-user, I want second screen content to provide me with something extra to what you see on the TV show.

Category/topic/context Added value, Extra content


Abstract Viewers expect content to provide something extra and not just repeat something from the television show.

Detailed description What viewers seem to appreciate the most is the extra content and information they receive that they would not have had if they only watched the show. This has clear added value for them. Care has to be given not to make these too complex however and not every bit of information might be as interesting to everyone.

Justification for

Inclusion

Providing extra content will increase the value people ascribe to the second screen.

User story As an end-user, I want the second screen to provide me with easy access to information related to the TV show but not the story.

Category/topic/context Added value, Information


Abstract Provide viewers them with facts they didn’t know before or things they would be likely to look up themselves. In both cases it delivers added value to the viewer.

42 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Detailed description Non-story related information could be about the actors in the show, short explanations about specific terms like medical or legal terms characters use, or background/featured music from the show. This is information viewers mind look up themselves during the show so it is better to provide it to them and keep them in the app.

Justification for

Inclusion

Providing non-story related information to viewers has added value to them and keeps them in the app.

User story As an end-user, I want polls with interesting non-trivial topics and I want my answers to have an impact.

Category/topic/context Added value, Polls, End-user input


Abstract Viewers like giving their opinion and to see how others vote, the questions have to be interesting enough however and ideally should have an impact on the show.

Detailed description Some viewers from the observation enjoyed polls because they lead to discussion and it was interesting to see how opinions vary. Others found that the questions posed weren’t really interesting or they were disappointed that they didn’t have any real impact. It is important to think about the questions that are used in polls so they are more than filler and it would be very interesting to find a way in which polls could have an actual impact.

Justification for

Inclusion

Polls can lead to social interaction between viewers and engage them more to the show especially if their input has an impact on that show.

7.6. Conclusions The conclusions of this first iteration of end user research in the Dutch pilot can be summarised in the following list of user requirements and user stories.


Req.01 Interactive TV applications should have a very low threshold to get users started.

Req.02 For continued use, robustness and ease of use are indispensible.

43 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Req.03 Perfect synching between multiple screens is essential for a good user experience.

Req.04 Make sure interactive TV apps function just as well on delayed viewing.

Req.05 Make sure existing content can be reviewed during the show

Req.06 If you want viewers revisiting the content, provide added value beyond the show.

Req.07 To stimulate interaction in the living room, provide polarizing or controversial topics

Req.08 The value of social media features in an interactive TV app is dependent on the shows genre.

Req.09 Give a clear indication when new content is available on the second screen as well as how much time there is before the next update.

Req.10 If possible use cues on the show to call attention to updates on the second screen (e.g. text messages and phone calls).

Req.11 Keep the user engaged by maintaining a high enough level of activity on first and second screen combined

Req.12 Do not break out of the app

Req.13 Carefully balance the activity on first and second screen so they don’t interfere

Req.14 Provide something extra and do not just repeat something from the television show.

Req.15 Provide advertisements on the second screen that are linked to the content of the TV program

Req.16 Provide viewers with easy in-app access to info that can be found elsewhere on the internet (e.g. information about actors)

Req.17 When asking viewers for input on polls make sure the question is non-trivial and is likely to split the viewers in their responses.

Req.18 When asking viewers for input try to have their answer have an impact.

Req.19 Provide viewers with extra info related to the show that they would not receive when

watching the show without the interactive TV app.

Req.20 When creating info updates for interactive TV apps make sure these updates are not

so complex viewers get distracted from the show if they want to ‘consume’ these

updates.


Usability

- As an end-user I want threshold free robust and easy to use HbbTV/Interactive TV apps.

- As an end-user I want HbbTV/Interactive TV apps to offer the same experience during delayed viewing as on live broadcasts.

- As a program maker I want viewers to come back to my app outside of the shows

44 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


running time

Social interaction


Attention

- As an end-user I want to know when new content is available on a second screen so I can focus on the main screen in between.

- As a program maker, I want to make sure the amount of updates viewers is sufficient and well balanced between first and second screen.

Added value


- As an end-user, I want the second screen to provide me with easy access to information related to the TV show but not the story.

- As an end-user, I want polls with interesting non-trivial topics and I want my answers to have an impact.

45 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


8. Spanish Pilot Requirements

The aim of this section is to describe the process of end user requirements elicitation and analysis that was performed for the Spanish pilot. First, an overview of the methods applied and the participants that took part in the user research actions is offered. The generated results are then analysed and discussed. The outcome is a list of end user requirements for the pilot. These results are then further formalised as a set of user stories.

8.1. Methods Used In the early planning stages of the first iteration of task 2.2, it was determined that one of the best methods to elicit user requirements was the contextual interview. Contextual interviewing (or contextual inquiry) is an ethnography-based method, focused on understanding user-system interactions to derive implications for design (Beyer & Holtzblatt 1997). In the context of requirements elicitation, these are usually carried out in the natural settings in which users employ a given technological device, with the goal to understand its specific contexts and modalities of utilisation, and elicit useful data to create a set of functional and non-functional requirements.

In the case of the Spanish pilot, performing contextual interviews posed an additional challenge. Since the first Interactive TV sets have reached the Spanish market quite recently, the number of potential interviewees who already had HbbTV 1.5 TV sets at home was estimated to be tiny, and thus extremely difficult to reach. For this reason, and given time constraints, an alternate approach was used to capitalise on the strengths of the contextual interview method while taking into account the extreme difficulty in finding proper real-life contexts. It was decided that several users with profiles that suited each of the tentative User stories developed by TVC would be selected, and interviewed in a research facility that mimicked a real living room. These interviews were to be complemented by a requirements workshop, tailored to the specificities of the task and the project.

The interviews were structured as a three-step process. In a first phase of the interview, the researcher explored their attitudes, needs, behaviours and desires regarding the television technology in general, and the specific kinds of programmes that the tentative User stories developed by TVC were targeting in particular. In a second stage, the users were presented with the technology, and trained on the usage, possibilities and limitations of HbbTV. This took the shape of an informal hands-on session, in which the user could touch and explore a real HbbTV set with existing trial services (“TV3 a la carta”, TVC’s VOD service). Users were then inquired about the requirements, features and desires they envision for HbbTV, based on their own personal experience as TV watchers and their newly gained knowledge about the technology. In the final stage of the interview, the user was enticed to brainstorm on possible service and application concepts, working on multiple answers to the question “what would you love to see becoming real on this TV?”.

46 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Table 2 Structure of ad-hoc user contextual interviews in Spanish pilot

Timeframe Activity

5’ Introduction. Filling in of criteria/socio-demographic details, explanation of

project and interview goals, and delineation of interview structure.

20’ Exploration of attitudes towards TV technology and programmes.

5’ Hands-on training session with HbbTV set.

20’ Elicitation of requirements for Interactive TV.

15’ Brainstorm. Exploration of application and service concepts.

5’ Closure.

These interviews were followed by a user workshop. User workshops are focused work sessions in which a carefully selected group of users work together with a facilitator to draft a list of functional and non-functional requirements. Requirements workshops are a way to involve users in the early stages of the innovation process, and if properly run, can be an important action for requirements elicitation and analysis, providing valuable inputs for subsequent stages of the project (Kristensson, Matthing & Johansson, 2007).

The user workshop planned for task 2.2 had three interrelated goals. The first goal was to validate the contents elicited during the interviews with the users. The second was to expand and elaborate with the users on the concepts and notions that were identified as being the most relevant for requirement analysis. And the third objective was to brainstorm with users, and co-create insights on design, usability and service ideas that could be fed in as inputs for the mock-up phase.

47 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Figure 3 User requirements co-creation workshop

These three goals were reflected in the division of the workshop in three distinct phases. Phase 1 took the shape of a focused discussion (or focus group), and revolved on a discussion of the most relevant topics that surfaced during the interviews regarding their attitudes, routines and views towards TV. A set of tentative categories developed from a preliminary analysis of interview transcripts was presented to the workshop participants, who prioritised the topics that they considered to be most relevant to their own experience as TV watchers. Phase 2 was designed as a requirements co-creation activity, where users could elaborate on their needs and wishes for HbbTV, and focused on user evaluation and enrichment of the User stories being considered. Users first worked individually to create a first set of ideas, then discussed them in small groups to come up with a larger list of requirements, and finally presented the larger group with their ideas. And Phase 3 was a brainstorming exercise where users were encouraged to think outside the box, and was centred on getting user insights to develop design, usability and service concepts. This last exercise followed the same structure as Phase 2, with the loci of participant efforts flowing from individual to small group and finally to large group levels. The models of the participant’s worksheets are available in the annex.

48 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Table 3 Structure of user requirements co-creation workshop in Spanish pilot

Timeframe Activity

5’ Introduction. Filling in of criteria/socio-demographic details, explanation of

project and workshop goals, and delineation of workshop structure.

Phase 1. Attitudes towards TV watching

10’ Category prioritisation exercise. Aggregation of individual votes and

selection of most relevant topics.

20’ Group discussion of common topics that surfaced in the interviews.

Exploration of attitudes towards TV technology and programmes.

Delineation of social requirements of TV services.

Phase 2. Co-creation of use case requirements

15’ Individual exercise. Drafting of user ideas towards requirements for specific

User stories.

15’ Small group exercise with user profiles. Further delineation of requirements

for specific User stories.

10’ Group discussion. Final validation of user requirements.

Phase 3. Brainstorm of design, usability and service concepts

15’ Individual brainstorm. Exploration and development of design, usability and

service concepts.

15’ Small group brainstorm. Exploration and development of design, usability

and service concepts.

10’ Group discussion. Feedback and enrichment of ‘group champion’ ideas.

5’ Closure.

8.2. Participants A group of nine users was selected to take part in both activities. The user profiles were tailored to the three most likely tentative User stories developed by TVC: news coverage of high-impact events; football matches; and Formula One races. Therefore, the sets of criteria to select the interviewees were the following:

49 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Table 4 Profile driven criteria for user selection in Spanish pilot

“News special” user profile (3 users)

- Watches TV news daily.

- Never misses news specials on high-impact events such as election days.

- Level of technological knowledge: at least one user must have owned a TV set with

HbbTV for at least a month.

- Sex: user group should include both sexes (at least one female and one male).

- Age: one 18-30, one 31-45, one 46-65.

“Football lover” user profile (3 users)

- Watches football matches on TV set at home often (at least 3 matches watched last

month for the last six months).



- Sex: user group should include both sexes (at least one female and one male).

- Age: one 18-30, one 31-45, one 46-65.

“Formula One lover” user profile (3 users)

- Watches Formula One races on TV set at home almost every time (at least 4 out of 5

last races watched).



- Sex: user group should include both sexes (at least one female and one male)

- Age: one 18-30, one 31-45, one 46-65.

An open call for volunteers that fitted these profiles was launched, and disseminated through a variety of online (websites and social media outlets) and offline (local newspapers and community-based ICT organisations) media. The logistic assistance and community outreach of a local ENOLL-certified Living Lab, Neapolis (www.neapolis.cat), was also enlisted through a subcontracting scheme, to assist with their expertise in the organisation of the user research actions. The requests to take part in the project were received through an online form, which collected data on the profile-driven criteria and other relevant socio-demographic variables. All data protection and privacy standards were observed, including a signed informed consent form, which ensures compliance with ethical and legal regulations (including the Spanish Organic Law 15/1999 of 13 December on the Protection of Personal Data, and the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data).

From this pool of volunteers, nine users with the following characteristics were chosen to take part in the research:

50 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Table 5 Participants overview Spanish pilot

Participant code Gender Age Profile

M-37-NS-NE M 37 News and football watcher, HbbTV non-expert user.

M-22-N-NE M 22 News watcher, HbbTV non-expert user.

F-37-N-NE F 37 News watcher, HbbTV non-expert user.

M-36-NF-E M 36 News and Formula One watcher, HbbTV expert user.

F-33-NS-NE F 33 News and football watcher, HbbTV non-expert user.

M-29-NSF-E M 29 News, football and Formula One watcher, HbbTV

expert user.

M-58-NSF-NE M 58 News, football and Formula One watcher, HbbTV

non-expert user.

M-59-NSF-E M 59 News, football and Formula One watcher, HbbTV

expert user.

M-29-NS-E M 29 News and football watcher, HbbTV expert user.

8.3. Data analysis

This first round of user research generated a significant volume of raw data, in the shape of interview and focus group audio recordings, the participants’ individual and group worksheets at the co-creation workshop, and a wealth of observation notes taken during these research actions. These data were subjected to qualitative analysis, which followed well-established coding procedures to assign categories to textual statements. Lower-level categories were grouped together and assigned a high-level category. The resulting categories and subcategories were rearranged into hierarchical tree structures. For these categories, further analysis was performed to develop a first set of end user requirements on the basis of the participants’ inputs.

8.4. Results

The analysis of interview and workshop outputs (audio recordings, observation notes and participant worksheets) uncovered the following set of categories, insights and recommendations:

51 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


8.4.1. Social context

8.4.1.1. Modes of visualisation

There are several ways of watching TV, a continuum which fluctuates between two poles: on one end, a careful and focused consumption of audio-visual content; on the other end, TV programs as a mere sound to fill the void.

“It’s funny because, like, for example, in the morning, I watch the news channel while I’m getting ready to go to school, and I have in the background, it wakes me up. And then, when I’m back home for lunch I watch the news again, and it’s exactly the very same news programme, but many times I’m like “What? I didn’t know this was going on!”, like I had watched it in the morning but I missed completely the story [laughs]” (F-33-NS-NE)

Users pay more or less attention to TV programmes depending on content and context. Regarding content, and putting aside social conditioners of taste (Bourdieu 1984), it can be assumed to be related to the personal preferences of each user: the more interesting, the more attention. However, environmental factors seem to be the most determining factors in shaping the level of user attention to the screen. A given user will pay more or less attention to an a priori subjectively interesting content as a function of time (i.e. users hurrying to the office in the morning will likely pay less attention to the news at that moment than in the evening), the household’s social TV consumption habits (i.e. families who use the TV as an excuse to share some time together may comment and digress more and pay less attention to programmes they like), and multitasking behaviour (i.e. users who watch TV while cooking or doing household chores will pay less attention), among others.

“In my home, the TV is almost always on. Many times I have it on when I’m alone at home, while I’m doing something else, like ironing the clothes or cooking in the kitchen [i.e. in another room where the TV is out of sight] (M-58-NSF-NE)

It is interesting to note that in some households the TV is almost always on: in these households, the measured number of TV ‘watching’ hours may be very high, but the percentage of these hours in focused watching mode is likely to be comparatively low.

Req.31 When analysing user patterns of TV watching in the pilot, take into account the phenomenon of the “always-on TV”.

Req.32 When analysing user patterns of TV watching in the pilot, take into account the phenomenon of low attention visualisation.

8.4.1.2. Social elements of television

There appears to be a very marked social element in some instances of watching certain kinds of contents, such as movies, series and sports.

”I’ve always watched football with other people. When I was younger I would go to the bar every weekend to watch the match with my friends. Now I guess I’ve become lazier, or comfier, and watch it at home. But it’s always that either friends come by to watch it together, or that we meet at somebody else’s” (M-37-NS-NE)

“Of course, going to the stadium is such different experience... but still, when I go to the pub to watch a match I can feel some of the same energy” (M-29-NS-E)

52 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


For some users, a great deal of the attractiveness of these contents comes from the fact that they enable a set of social interactions with friends and relatives; that is, the possibility of sharing time with one’s loved ones performing an activity that they all enjoy.

The most apparent example is sports matches and races: the social consumption of these contents at pubs or a friend’s home provides a taste of the communitarian experience (“being part of something”) that can be lived in the football stadium or the race track. In the event that the user has to watch these contents by herself, it is not clear that the possibility to get that degree of social interaction through second screen use of Whatsapp or social networks will be automatically attractive to most users.

Req.33 Design TV applications so that they support and not inhibit the natural social interactions that arise during TV watching.

8.4.2. Business and advertising

8.4.2.1. Advertisements

Most users perceive advertisements on TV as a “necessary evil”, which can be more or less tolerable depending on the structure of the advertising breaks and the narrative characteristics of the television programme.

“- I hate advertisements... man, I really do! [general laughs] Especially when you’re in the middle of a climactic scene in a movie, something important is just about to happen, and then suddenly an announcement for an advertisement break kicks in: ‘we’ll be back in six minutes!’ (M-29-NSF-E, in focus group session)

- Yeah, me too! And in series they do this as well: in [name of the series] they even start the show, play thirty seconds to get you hooked, and then have an eight-minute break. It’s so frustrating!” (F-33-NS-NE, in focus group session)

“I’m not really bothered by ad breaks. In fact, I always wait for the advertisements to go to the toilet or to the kitchen to grab a bite” (M-59-NSF-E)

The most annoying advertisement structure seems to be multiple and frequent breaks that interrupt the narrative flow of audio-visual content (especially in movies and series). The most tolerable appears to be less disruptive kinds of advertising such as exclusive programme sponsoring (“...brand X is bringing you this movie without interruptions!”), inter-programme advertising, and concentrating ads in a single lengthy break in the middle of the programme. Given the generally negative user perception of advertising, an important way to enhance the user experience is to balance user satisfaction (advertising as content interruption) with broadcaster financing concerns (advertising as revenue stream).

Req.34 When inserting advertisements, make sure that these do not disrupt the narrative flow of the TV programme.

8.4.2.2. Pay per view services

Users’ inclination to pay for HbbTV services will be dependent on the attractiveness of the specific contents and functionalities.

“I have already used a TV that works a little bit like this one, because my cousin has a Smart TV at home. [...] At first I thought “how silly, why would you pay for TV, when there are so many awesome channels for free!” But the truth is

53 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


that he gets to watch lots of cool movies and series on TV that I miss.” (M-22-N-NE)

In principle, users prefer no direct purchase of contents at all, and would rather have audio-visual contents financed by brand sponsorships or non-intrusive forms of advertising. However, if the quality of the extra contents, services or functionalities available for purchase in HbbTV warrants it, a pay-per-view system could be acceptable for a sizeable segment of users, especially those who are already familiar with excusive content purchase in specialised channels.

Req.35 Explore and prioritise minimally disruptive revenue generating mechanisms for HbbTV such as exclusive programme sponsoring and pre-programme advertising.

8.4.3. Design, control and recommendation

8.4.3.1. Navigation and control

All the interviewees shared the idea that HbbTV interfaces and control systems must be easy to learn and easy to operate.

“I’ve seen some Smart TV’s where you can type whatever you want to search for in the screen. But writing with the remote control is very impractical, and it takes too long...” (M-29-NSF-E)

“The remote control should be really intuitive, something that my 80 year old grandpa would be able to use” (M-22-N-NE)

”I would like the TV of the future to be wireless and without remote control, controlled with the body’s movements (like Kinect)” (M-36-NF-E, co-creation workshop output)

A system based on current remote controls would be acceptable if it enabled the user to access the contents she wants with the minimum number of actions required, and relied heavily on existing teletext designs to make HbbTV navigation logics easy to understand for new users (see Norman 1988 for further guidance). In further HbbTV developments, an interesting possibility would be to explore ways to control the TV through voice or gestures.

Req.36 Design a top usability remote control system for HbbTV applications.

8.4.3.2. Content recommendation

Regarding the HbbTV content offering, content diversity and quantity should be balanced with ease of navigation. This could be achieved with a solid content recommendation system.

“I’m very fond of a website called [name of website], where you can download all sorts of movies and series. And the amount of content up there is amazing. But at first it was a little bit messy, and it was difficult to find interesting movies, especially if you weren’t looking for any particular movie. Then they introduced a way to vote movies and get recommended the top rated from that genre, and it really got much easier to find new movies” (M-29-NS-E)

“I think I’m fine with getting recommendations, but I want to understand why I’m getting something recommended. I still want to have a choice; I don’t want the machine taking over the freedom of choice from me.” (F-37-N-NE)

Such a system which would 1) display personalised suggestions according to a user’s patterns of audio-visual consumption, a user’s friends and/or a set of categories selected in the user’s

54 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


profile; 2) track a user’s actual consumption to delete already viewed episodes and consistently disregarded recommendations; 3) have an internal logic of recommendation that is comprehensible and meets user expectations (so that the user can infer why any given content is being recommended to her); and 4) empower the user by allowing her to manage the system’s monitoring (turn tracking on/off, manage search and viewing history, and comply with all privacy protection and ethical standards).

“I don’t know... I have so many profiles at so many sites that I wouldn’t be particularly happy if I have to create yet another one. But, if I can just use my Facebook or Twitter profile to log in, I wouldn’t mind” (M-29-NSF-E)

“Hmm. A TV that monitors everything that you watch? That sounds a little scary, like Big Brother or something...” (F-33-NS-NE)

The possibility to create a user profile on TV was met with mixed reactions from the participant group: some users were very much against the notion of a TV gathering data on them, some others liked the notion as long as it didn’t take much effort (using Facebook to log in rather than creating yet another profile was suggested), and yet some others thought it would be a good idea if it led to better recommendations. To avoid unique user identification problems in larger households with multiple dwellers, the creation of several profiles could be allowed (which would then be turned on or off according to that moment’s viewers).

Req.37 Design a content recommendation system that meets the user expectations in terms of usability, degree of personalisation, quality of recommendations, and privacy issues.

8.4.3.3. Multi-camera displays

The possibility to have several simultaneous live objects on TV at any time was regarded as a very good idea by Formula One fans, a sport in which the action takes place simultaneously in several locations, and multiple car duels can be raging at any one time. In football matches, though, users are more hesitant.

“I think I’d love it, if I could put a focus on my favourite pilot and follow his car all the race. Actually, nowadays it happens often that the Formula One broadcast places a lot of attention on the top pilots, and I don’t get to watch as much as I would like my favourite one.” (M-36-NF-E)

“- Well, I don’t know... I guess it could be cool, you could have a camera following Messi and have some sequences in the broadcast when he does a cool dribble or a goal, but all the time, it would be kind of boring, I don’t know.... - How much do you think you would pay to watch the footage from such a camera? - Hmm. I don’t know... probably nothing, no. [laughs] If you had to pay extra for it, I would try it out once, but I don’t think I would use it too often.” (M-59-NSF-E)

To have a camera focused or being inconspicuously carried by a top player can be funny and attract attention, but users’ interest may fade quickly: when their team is defending, top strikers tend to remain static, keeping their energies for the upcoming counterattack; similarly, when their team is attacking, goalkeepers do not participate in the action at all. Additional cameras on key players can be integrated into the broadcast to enrich the viewers’ experience in particular instances of play (a shoot, a goal, or a blocking), but it remains an untested hypothesis whether users would value these additional cameras enough to be interested in them for more than five minutes in any given match, let alone make a payment to watch them.

Req.38 Determine the conditions for user acceptance of multi-camera services.

55 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


8.4.4. Advanced functionalities

8.4.4.1. Second screen functionalities

The possibility of coordinating content delivery in the TV set and the handheld device was very attractive to most users:

“Many times I’m watching a documentary on TV and I want to have more information on something. Like, if it’s a biography of a director, I want a list of movies from the same director, or if it’s a historical documentary, I want to know more from that period. But I don’t want to interrupt the flow of the documentary. I think it would be very cool if I could just use my phone to make a compilation of things that I want to watch later, on the go, and then after the show have it there so I can follow up on what I have just watched” (M-37-NS-NE)

“I would like to download an app to my smartphone and control the TV with it” (M-22-N-NE)

Several services were suggested, such as an application to use the handheld device as an advanced remote control (allowed for many more functionalities than the few buttons of the current control), or an application to instantly retrieve and save information on the contents being watched (related films when watching a movie, a documentary or extended reportage when watching the news, or statistics and expert analyses in races or matches).

Req.39 Explore the possibility of using a second screen application as a remote control. Req.40 Explore the possibility of using a second screen application to display information that

complements first screen contents.

8.4.4.2. Customisation of news information

Regarding news services, most users felt that it was important to find a middle ground between an offering of objective and neutral information and the spin that is given to the news stories. Many users’ key desire appears to be to be given the tools and elements to build one’s own opinion about the topics that concern them.

”What I seek in a good new service is reliable information, something that I can trust” (M-58-NSF-NE)

“Many times, when I’m watching the news I feel like I would like to know more about this or that topic, but they only talk about it for, like, less than twenty seconds. And then, they switch to some other news story that I find irrelevant, or at least uninteresting for me, and spend almost a minute discussing it...” (M-29-NSF-E)

“I would like to choose the news anchor, and to customise the news stories that are presented” (F-33-NS-NE, co-creation workshop output)

An attractive possibility for many users was to structure the news offering in thematic blocks, so that each user can configure her customised news programme by choosing the topics she likes (sports, culture, arts, international...) in the order she likes, by making her own personal sequence. Another possibility would be to enable the geographical customisation of the contents displayed in the HbbTV application (weather, traffic and local news).

Req.41 Explore possibilities for user customisation of news contents.

56 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


8.4.4.3. Opportunities for advanced applications

For many users, the TV set is a central element in the distribution of the household. Unlike the computer, which is usually kept in a bedroom or studio, the TV (or, in multi-TV households, the largest TV) is very often placed in the living room, and many other activities are organised around this device (meals, household chores, parties).

“I would like to have a videoconference service so that I can check if my [elderly] parents are ok in their home” (M-58-NSF-NE, co-creation workshop output)

“I would like to have contents that can assist my children to do their homework” (F-37-N-NE, co-creation workshop output)

“I would like to be able to vote from home” (M-36-NF-E, co-creation workshop output)

“I would like to use my TV as the central computer of my house with many functions (like a telly-PC hybrid)” (F-33-NS-NE, co-creation workshop output)

For this reason, the TV is in a privileged position to service domotics applications (controlling household appliances, systems and sensors), to cover specific needs of those who live there (as a health monitoring tool for the elderly or infirm, reminding people of their medication or fitness exercises), or to promote citizen participation in politics and the arts (i.e. with virtual access to public libraries’ multimedia contents and monitoring information on the government’s performance, in opposition to the portrayal of the TV as the “dumb box”, a purveyor of shallow and stultifying entertainment).

Additionally, some users stated that the inclusion of elements that enabled “virtual travels” would enrich their TV experience.

”I would like the TV to allow me to travel around the world, like virtual reality or something like that” (M-29-NSF-E, co-creation workshop output)

For these users, TV was perceived as a window to the world, as a tool that allows the user to take “virtual tours” to several points of interest, even with the TDT technology they were most familiar with. HbbTV could better serve the needs of these kinds of users by offering additional audio-visual contents to nature or travel documentaries, especially with real-time on-demand features.

Req.42 Explore opportunities for the development of advanced applications.

8.4.4.4. Lead user feedback

Three of the users who took part in the research actions displayed the features of lead users (von Hippel 1986): having been not sufficiently satisfied with their TDT TV sets, these users (ages 20-35) had found a way to plug their laptops to their TV sets so that they could watch internet content (mainly from public broadcasters’ VOD online services and streaming websites, legal and otherwise) on their large TV screens. This is to say, these users had innovated on their own to custom-build what can be considered a crude precursor to an HbbTV set.

“Yeah, a few years ago I found a way to connect my laptop to the TV. Because I was fed up of junk TV all the time on the commercial channels, and then I would go to the laptop and download or stream whatever movie my girlfriend and I felt like watching at that moment. But it was kind of uncomfortable, to watch a cool movie in a small screen, both of us crammed in front of the

57 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


computer desk. So I checked the TV manual and there was this way to get a cable from the electronics store and connect TV and laptop.” (M-29-NS-E)

“[Talking about a movies website] It has a section where you can give feedback publicly, and other users can see, comment on and endorse your suggestion. And the reason why this platform has improved so much over the months is because people have contributed really good ideas. And you can tell that whenever there has been website overhauls, the ideas were already there, these were ideas from the users.” (M-29-NS-E)

It must be noted that two of these users had a non-technical background, and no knowledge at all about Connected TV, let alone HbbTV: for them, connecting the laptop to the TV was not a simple task, requiring dedicated internet searches and several trial-and-error exercises. These users were also the ones that contributed the wildest future service ideas and most articulate recommendations at the workshop session. Since it can be assumed that the numbers of such users are far from negligible, enabling a medium or space where user feedback can be collected and encouraged should be considered.

Req.43 Enable a mechanism or functionality to collect and elicit user feedback, especially from lead users.

8.5. User stories

As a finishing step in the first iteration of user research, the results obtained from the requirements analysis of the generated data were formalised as a set of use stories. Some of the most feasible and interesting of these stories will be further elaborated and will inform the development of the pilot’s HbbTV applications and services. The present section describes these cases in detail.

8.5.1. Social context

User story As an audience analyst, I want an audience monitoring system that takes into account the irregularities of viewing patterns so that I get an accurate appraisal of user behaviour.

Category/topic/context Social context

Owner(s)/contacts Broadcaster - Marketing department

Abstract An accurate audience monitoring system takes into account not only quantity of but also quality of viewing time. Therefore, it has a way to acknowledge the existence of periods where users may not be paying attention to the contents being displayed on TV.

Detailed description There are several ways of watching TV, a continuum which fluctuates between two poles: on one end, a careful and focused consumption of audio-visual content; on the other end, TV programs as a mere sound to fill the void.

Furthermore, in some households the TV is almost always on: in

58 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


these households, the measured number of TV ‘watching’ hours may be very high, but the percentage of these hours in focused watching mode is likely to be comparatively low.

This raises some issues for audience analysis. If these periods are not filtered out or ironed out statistically, then figures on content viewing time are likely to be inaccurate.

Justification for

Inclusion

More accurate knowledge of the user behaviour is obtained, which can be employed to create and deliver more customised offerings to the audience.

Advertising revenue increase because of better audience monitoring information.

User story As an end user, I want HbbTV applications to support in-situ social interactions so that my social ties are strengthened.

Category/topic/context Social context

Owner(s)/contacts App developers

Abstract TV applications must be designed so that they support and not inhibit the natural social interactions that arise during TV watching.

Detailed description For some users, a great deal of the attractiveness of these contents comes from the fact that they enable a set of social interactions with friends and relatives; that is, the possibility of sharing time with one’s loved ones performing an activity that they all enjoy. This creates a great opportunity for apps that support these social interactions: instead of inhibiting these interactions by creating apps that unwittingly force users to turn their backs on the people around them, the interactions can be capitalised by giving audiences the chance to share time together with the app.

Justification for

Inclusion

Capitalising natural social interactions in the household to encourage in-app activity will improve the user experience and increase the audience’s fidelity.

8.5.2. Business and advertising

User story As an end user I want ad breaks to respect the narrative flow of programmes so that I can better follow the storyline.

59 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Category/topic/context Business and advertising


Abstract Advertisements can be very annoying for users if they disrupt the narrative flow of TV programmes where a story is being told (i.e. series and movies).

Detailed description Most users perceive advertisements on TV as a “necessary evil”, which can be more or less tolerable depending on the structure of the advertising breaks and the narrative characteristics of the television programme.

The most annoying advertisement structure seems to be multiple and frequent breaks that interrupt the narrative flow of audio-visual content (especially in movies and series). The most tolerable appears to be less disruptive kinds of advertising such as exclusive programme sponsoring (“...brand X is bringing you this movie without interruptions!”), inter-programme advertising, and concentrating ads in a single lengthy break in the middle of the programme.

Justification for

Inclusion

Enhanced user experience is an essential precondition for the user’s acceptance of the proposed applications and services.

User story As an end user I want more non-disruptive revenue generating mechanisms so that I can enjoy programmes without interruptions.

Category/topic/context Business and advertising


Abstract Users seem to prefer no direct purchase of contents at all, and would rather have audio-visual contents financed by brand sponsorships or non-intrusive forms of advertising.

Detailed description Given the generally negative user perception of advertising, an important way to enhance the user experience is to balance user satisfaction (advertising as content interruption) with broadcaster financing concerns (advertising as revenue stream).

Justification for

Inclusion

Increased revenue through innovative stream generating mechanisms.

60 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


8.5.3. Design, control and recommendation

User story As an end user I want a remote control system for HbbTV applications with the highest possible usability so that I can easily navigate the application.

Category/topic/context Design, control and recommendation


Abstract HbbTV interfaces and control systems must be easy to learn and easy to operate.

Detailed description A system based on current remote controls would be acceptable if it enabled the user to access the contents she wants with the minimum number of actions required, and relied heavily on existing teletext designs to make HbbTV navigation logics easy to understand for new users.

In further HbbTV developments, an interesting possibility would be to explore ways to control the TV through voice or gestures, based on technologies such as those included in Xbox’s Kinect.

Justification for

Inclusion


User story As an end user I want a content recommendation system that meets my expectations so that that I get a selection of contents that is tailored to my specific needs and interests.



Abstract A solid content recommendation system can be an essential component of an interface solution that balances breadth of content with excellent usability features.

Detailed description An optimal content recommendation system would:

1) Display personalised suggestions according to a user’s patterns of audio-visual consumption, a user’s friends and/or a set of categories selected in the user’s profile;

2) Track a user’s actual consumption to delete already viewed

61 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


episodes and consistently disregarded recommendations;

3) Have an internal logic of recommendation that is comprehensible and meets user expectations (so that the user can infer why any given content is being recommended to her); and

4) Empower the user by allowing her to manage the system’s monitoring (turn tracking on/off, manage search and viewing history, and comply with all privacy protection and ethical standards).

Justification for

Inclusion


User story As an end user I want interesting multi-camera services so that I can enrich my experience.


Owner(s)/contacts App developers, UX researchers

Abstract Multi-camera services have the potential to deliver very attractive functionalities to specific audiences. However, more research is needed on the conditions for these services to be embraced by users.

Detailed description The acceptability of multi-camera services seems to be very content-specific.

This possibility was regarded as a very good idea by Formula One fans, a sport in which the action takes place simultaneously in several locations, and multiple car duels can be raging at any one time.

However, this does not seem to apply to other sports such as football. To have a camera focused or being inconspicuously carried by a top player can be funny and attract attention, but users’ interest may fade quickly: when their team is defending, top strikers tend to remain static, keeping their energies for the upcoming counterattack; similarly, when their team is attacking, goalkeepers do not participate in the action at all.

Justification for

Inclusion


Additional revenue streams can be generated with the pay-per-view sale of multi-camera services.

62 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


8.5.4. Advanced functionalities

User story As an end user I want advanced second screen applications so that I can get additional functionalities.

Category/topic/context Advanced functionalities


Abstract Second screen applications can enable innovative functionalities for the use of handheld devices as remote controls, or for the delivery of complementary contents to users in a way that does not interfere with main screen contents.

Detailed description In the co-creation session conducted with users, several services were suggested, such as an application to use the handheld device as an advanced remote control (allowed for many more functionalities than the few buttons of the current control), or an application to instantly retrieve and save information on the contents being watched (related films when watching a movie, a documentary or extended reportage when watching the news, or statistics and expert analyses in races or matches).

Justification for

Inclusion


User story As an end user, I want to get customised information so that I get a selection of information that is tailored to my specific needs and interests.



Abstract Many users’ key desire appears to be to be given the tools and elements to build one’s own opinion about the particular topics that concern them, in a way that is credible and flexible.

Detailed description An attractive possibility for many users was to structure the news offering in thematic blocks, so that each user can configure her customised news programme by choosing the topics she likes (sports, culture, arts, international...) in the order she likes, by making her own personal sequence.

Another possibility would be to enable the geographical customisation of the contents displayed in the HbbTV application

63 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


(weather, traffic and local news).

Justification for

Inclusion


User story As an end user, I want advanced applications so that my daily life is made easier and my experience is enriched.



Abstract Several worth exploring ideas about future uses of Interactive TVs were generated by the users in the co-creation workshop.

Detailed description The TV’s status as a central element of the household places it in an excellent position to service daily life needs thorough apps such as:

- Domotics applications (controlling household appliances, systems and sensors),

- Apps that cover specific needs of the household (as a health monitoring tool for the elderly or infirm, reminding people of their medication or fitness exercises),

- Apps that promote citizen participation in politics and the arts (i.e. with virtual access to public libraries’ multimedia contents and monitoring information on the government’s performance, or even voting on matters of local relevance).

Additionally, some users stated that the inclusion of elements that enabled “virtual travels” would enrich their TV experience.

Justification for

Inclusion

Advanced functionalities can open up new market and revenue streams for IPTV applications and their developers.

User story As an end user, and as a broadcaster, I want an efficient way to provide user feedback on the user experience so that it can be continuously improved.



Abstract A mechanism or functionality must be enabled to collect and elicit

64 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


user feedback, especially from lead users.

Detailed description Active users who are willing to spend time providing feedback have been shown to be an essential asset for innovation projects, contributing the best service ideas and most articulate recommendations for improvement. Since the numbers of such users are far from negligible, enabling a medium or space where user feedback can be collected and encouraged can yield considerable rewards.

Justification for

Inclusion

User-generated feedback is a great source of incremental improvement ideas, and can even give rise to disruptive innovations.

8.6. Conclusions

As a conclusion, one of the key ideas that can be extracted with more clarity from the user research performed is that the notion of “watching what I want when I want” is extremely attractive to a wide range of end user profiles and socio-demographic backgrounds. A hypothesis that can be put forth according to the research results is that, regarding TV, users tend to be content-oriented, rather than technology-oriented: users are primarily concerned with content consumption, not with the specific technologies that enable content consumption. Technological devices are chosen as a function of their adequacy to the context of consumption: a user’s entry process to a new audio-visual consumption device is likely to be triggered by the possibility to watch a particular content or set of contents in a specific context. Hence, HbbTV’s main strength in the view of the users is likely to be the prospect of “watching what I want, when I want”.

Nevertheless, although HbbTV technology has the potential to fulfil this widely held desire, HbbTV offerings still have the risk of not being attractive enough for many users if the quantity, quality and diversity of the content supplied are not deemed sufficient to justify embracing the new technology. What this argument implies is that the “push” of HbbTV technological possibilities must be completed with the “pull” of the attraction of innovative content if a critical mass of users is to be engaged in content consumption through HbbTV. Within the scope of the TV-RING project, this suggests an approach in which the focus is placed on highlighting the 24/7 availability of the public broadcaster’s most successful content on HbbTV, and diversifying the range of available content by offering as well as much third-party quality content as possible, such as lesser known films from cinema and documentary festivals, real-time cultural events like theatre plays and operas, web series, and curated user generated content (i.e. skater and parkour amateur videos, user footage of high-impact events).


Req.31 When analysing user patterns of TV watching in the pilot, take into account the phenomenon of the “always-on TV”.

Req.32 When analysing user patterns of TV watching in the pilot, take into account the phenomenon of low attention visualisation.

65 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Req.33 Design TV applications so that they support and not inhibit the natural social interactions that arise during TV watching.

Req.34 When inserting advertisements, make sure that these do not disrupt the narrative flow of the TV programme.

Req.35 Explore and prioritise minimally disruptive revenue generating mechanisms for HbbTV such as exclusive programme sponsoring and pre-programme advertising.

Req.36 Design a top usability remote control system for HbbTV applications.

Req.37 Design a content recommendation system that meets the user expectations in terms of usability, degree of personalisation, quality of recommendations, and privacy issues.

Req.38 Determine the conditions for user acceptance of multi-camera services.

Req.39 Explore the possibility of using a second screen application as a remote control.

Req.40 Explore the possibility of using a second screen application to display information that complements first screen contents.

Req.41 Enable a mechanism or functionality to collect and elicit user feedback, especially from lead users.

Req.42 Explore opportunities for the development of advanced applications.

Req.43 Explore possibilities for user customisation of news contents.


Social context

- As an audience analyst, I want an audience monitoring system that takes into account the irregularities of viewing patterns so that I get an accurate appraisal of user behaviour.

- As an end user, I want HbbTV applications to support in-situ social interactions so that my social ties are strengthened.

Business and advertising

- As an end user I want ad breaks to respect the narrative flow of programmes so that I can better follow the storyline.

- As an end user I want more non-disruptive revenue generating mechanisms so that I can enjoy programmes without interruptions.

Design, control and recommendation

- As an end user I want a remote control system for HbbTV applications with the highest possible usability so that I can easily navigate the application.

- As an end user I want a content recommendation system that meets my expectations so that that I get a selection of contents that is tailored to my specific needs and interests.

- As an end user I want interesting multi-camera services so that I can enrich my experience.

66 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Advanced functionalities

- As an end user I want advanced second screen applications so that I can get additional functionalities.

- As an end user, I want to get customised information so that I get a selection of information that is tailored to my specific needs and interests.

- As an end user, I want advanced applications so that my daily life is made easier and my experience is enriched.

- As an end user, and as a broadcaster, I want an efficient way to provide user feedback on the user experience so that it can be continuously improved.

67 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


9. Combined Requirements

During the first plenary meeting of the TV-RING project in Munich on 18 and 19 December 2013, a workshop was held to combine the results from the three pilots. The workshop was attended by at least one representative from each partner in the project. There were fourteen people in total of which 7-8 people actively participated at any given time.

9.1. Aggregation As documented in the introduction, the focus for this first step of user requirements research was different for the three pilots. The methods were therefore also customized according to the focus of each pilot. There was a guideline that had recommendations on the application of different user research methods. However, every pilot was free to choose his or her preferred methods. This was done for two reasons: to accommodate for the difference in focus between the pilots. One method might be better suited to investigate a certain focus point. Secondly all parties have experience with different methods. If those methods are suited for the specific focus points it is good to play into the strengths of the individual pilot researchers.

In the end the Spanish and the German pilot opted for in depth interviews with HbbTV users. Whereas the Dutch pilot went for an observation of couples in their own home while watching a program with a second screen companion app followed by an interview. This difference in approach led to a difference in the type of requirements that were discovered by each pilot. However this also offers even more opportunity to learn from the requirements that were discovered from the other pilots. To end up with a unified end result that could be easily benefited from by all three pilots, the end result for each pilot was structured in the same way. All pilots extracted a set of requirements and more formal User stories from the data they had gathered. These requirements and User stories can be found in the respective pilot sections.

A session was planned during the first plenary meeting to aggregate these requirements into a set combined set of requirements. The procedure to aggregate the end user requirements from the three pilots was similar to that of the internal workshop of the Dutch Pilot as described in section 6.3 of the D2.3 deliverable. The exact procedure was as follows.

9.1.1. Procedure

The end user requirement subcategories that were discovered in the three pilots were printed and cut into individual snippets. These snippets were then divided among the workshop participants. They were asked to go through the following procedure:

Step 1: Free Clustering

o Take ‘snippets’ and place them with other related snippets

o If there are no related snippets yet place it on its own

Step 2: Challenging/Re-clustering

o Everyone gets a chance to argue why a certain snippet belongs with a different cluster of related snippets

o Alternatively if a snippet features multiple clusters a duplicate can be made

o It is also possible to merge or split clusters

Step 3: Final Labeling

68 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


o When everybody is happy with the clustering, come up with a appropriate name/label for each cluster

Figure 4 gives a visual impression of the workshop.

Figure 4 Workshop impression

9.2. Results

The result is the final clustering that originated from the workshop. The main and subcategories have the names that were agreed upon during the workshop. The requirements that make up the subcategories are the results from the individual pilots. The letters behind the requirements indicate from which user research they originate. The ‘D’ indicates a requirement from the Dutch pilot, ‘G’ indicates a requirement from the German pilot and ‘S’ indicates a requirement from the Spanish pilot. The topic of each category is briefly discussed. This discussion also looks at the differences and similarities between the three parties. Were requirements regarding the topic discovered in all three and if not is there an explanation for this. More details about each of the requirements can be found in the relevant chapters describing the results of the indicated pilot.

9.2.1. UX

This category includes everything that has an influence on the end users user experience. This includes technical issues as mentioned in ‘Performance’, ease of use and a smooth experience from ‘Usability’, and the issue of distracting and engaging users when dealing with multiple screens in ‘Distraction vs. Engagement’.

9.2.1.1. Performance

From the German interviews there were a couple of snippets that very directly stated the end-users wish for better quality and performance of TV streams.

The performance must be improved (G)

The video quality should be much better and/or selectable (G)

69 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


The related requirement from the German results is Req.30.

Overall Requirement 01: Video quality and performance for streams should be improved and/or selectable.

9.2.1.2. Usability

Here usability is the category for all snippets that are related to the end-users experience trying to navigate and control apps or hardware related to HbbTV. It’s a category with snippets from all the pilots which shows that for HbbTV like most systems ease of use is an important factor for users.

Usability, ease of use: apps should be threshold free and very easy to use (D)

Navigation and control (S)

Heterogeneous use of color buttons and icons should be more consistent (G)

The use of a Remote Control is sometimes cumbersome. Navigation should be made easier and more intuitive (G)

Synchronization between TV and Second Screen (for the available services) requires too many steps and too much time (G)

Timing/Synchronization: important for a smooth experience (D)

The related requirements are: Req.01, Req.02, Req.03, Req.27, Req.28, and Req.36

Overall Requirement 02: Applications and hardware need to have very low thresholds to get users started.

Overall Requirement 03: For continued use robustness ease of use consistency and intuitiveness are key.

Overall Requirement 04: When using multiple screens, synchronization should be effortless to setup and work flawlessly.

9.2.1.3. Distraction vs. Engagement

TV is traditionally a lean back medium. Viewers sit in front of their television set and just watch a program. Interactive TV changes this by adding interaction, overlays and or multiple screens. This brings up the issue of distraction and engagement. Do all these extras from interactive TV/HbbTV lead to more engagement or do they distract from the TV show? When using multiple screens how to find the right balance between them? These are important issues that came forth from all the pilots.

Too much extra information on the TV screen is disturbing (G)

Modes of visualization (S)

Distraction vs. Engagement, main focus still on show (D)

Second screen functionalities (using 1st and second screen together) (S)

Attention second screen, external apps, app switching on slow moments in show and second screen (D)

Attention second screen, the shows app, time indications to next ‘update’ are important (D)

The related requirements are: Req.09, Req.10, Req.11, Req.12, Req.13, Req.24, Req.29, Req.31, Req.32, and Req.40.

Overall Requirement 05: Do not clutter the main screen too much this is distracting for viewers.

Overall Requirement 06: When using multiple screens, carefully balance the activity between them so they don’t interfere.

70 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


9.2.2. Time Shifting

This category deals with all the time related requirements. How do you deal with the second screen outside of the show’s broadcast? These issues are grouped into the ‘Second Screen’ subcategory. It is also apparent that viewers are shifting towards delayed and on demand viewing more and more. This is an issue that interactive TV has to take into account. Requirements dealing with on demand viewing are grouped under ‘TV/Main Screen’.

9.2.2.1. Second Screen

Second screen content usually ‘lives’ only for the shows running time. This is also how users experience the second screen. Having content that keeps users interested outside broadcasts is not common but could be an interesting feature. Giving users the option to ‘bookmark’ things during the show for a relaxed review when the show has finished is also a great service.

Bookmarking interesting sequences (G)

Review second screen content (after show) not done much (D)

The related requirements are: Req.05, Req.06 and Req.26.

Overall Requirement 07: If you want users to visit content provided on a second screen outside of the shows broadcast, provide added value beyond the show.

Overall Requirement 08: Give users the option to ‘bookmark’ interesting items form the show or second screen so they can review them at their leisure when the show is done.

9.2.2.2. TV/Main Screen

Time shifting issues for the main screen mainly deal with delayed viewing and video on demand. Viewers express they want to watch what they want when they want. Interactive HbbTV content should not only work on live broadcasts but also on demand to fit this user attitude.

Content should be available for a longer period (G)

Current Video-on-Demand services are very popular. (G)

Delayed viewing, users use and appreciate a lot (D)

“To watch what I want, when I want” (S)

The related requirements are: Req.04, Req.23

Overall Requirement 09: Give users the option to watch what they want when they want.

9.2.3. Added Value

Added Value includes everything that the end-user appreciates from interactive TV that he/she would not experience when just watching the show. Interactive TV offers the user the option to participate with the show, to get a personalized experience, have the option to share his experience through social media, enhance the social interaction within the household or receive extra content for his favorite show.

9.2.3.1. Participation

Voting and opinion polls are easy ways to increase interactivity and participation from viewers. The difficulties lie in finding polls that are interesting enough to elicit discussion among the viewers both in the household and social media. This is also something people seem to really

71 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


enjoy. Voting about what will happen in a show is also a possibility but care has to be given that the predictions are not trivial. It would be even better if votes from viewers could have a real impact on the show.

Expectations: Voting, if (and only if) they are very simple (G)

Polls can lead to discussion in household (good) (D)

More interactive services like voting and other participation opportunities also appear very attractive (G)

The related requirements are: Req.17, Req.18, and Req.21

Overall Requirement 10: If you offer polls to users make sure the issues are not trivial so they can lead to discussion.

Overall Requirement 11: If you ask the user for input try to make their answer have an impact.

9.2.3.2. Personal TV

Another advantage HbbTV can give over traditional TV is a personal experience for the user. This can be in the form of recommendations and in customized content for TV shows. This only came up in the Spanish pilot. The related snippets that came up are the following.

Content recommendation (S)

Television as a customized source of information (S)

These were related to the following requirements: Req.37, Req.41.

Overall Requirement 12: Offer the user the ability to customize TV content. Overall Requirement 13: Recommendation systems should be easy to use offer high

quality recommendations while being as little privacy invasive as possible.

9.2.3.3. Social Media

Social media offers a way to connect people who are not in the same room watching the show together. It can be integrated in the app or the app can simply offer convenient links to for example Twitter or Facebook. It is also possible to offer possibilities to share HbbTV content through these channels for this to succeed the content need to be valuable for the user to want to share it however. From the Dutch observations it also shows that the value of social media integration is also dependent of the genre of the program.

Social Media Streams, i.e. check what friends post about this program or topic (G)

Interaction External (outside living room, twitter, FB) (D)

The related requirements are: Req.08 and Req.22.

Overall Requirement 14: Integrate social media directly or through convenient linking/sharing features but consider the suitability of the TV show.

9.2.3.4. Social Interaction Household

The people interviewed for the professional-users requirements indicated social interaction within the household could be stimulated through HbbTV, which in turn could lead to more user engagement. The end-user studies show the same. The following snippets make up this group.

Polls can lead to discussion in household (good) (D)

Social usage of television (S)

Television as a central element of the household (S)

72 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Interaction Living Room, can be stimulated by second screen (D)

The related requirements are: Req.07, Req.17 and Req.33

Overall Requirement 15: Interactive TV applications should support and stimulate social interactions that arise during TV viewing.

9.2.3.5. Content

The main issue for interactive TV content is to find the balance in offering enough to keep users engaged but not offering so much that the user cant consume it all without missing things. Furthermore the type of content that offers the most added value to users is very much dependent on the genre of the TV show. However what goes for any genre is that the content should offer something extra that the user would not get from just watching the show.

Additional information, e.g. contextual background knowledge (G)

More content for kids and youth (G)

Extra Content (story related) much added value (D)

Information (not story related), interesting but should not be too long (D)

Quotes from characters not very much value (D)

The related requirements are: Req.14, Req.16, and Req.19

Overall Requirement 16: Keep the user engaged by offering a high enough level of activity from the combination of the show and interactive TV extras but make sure to balance it so they don’t interfere with each other.

Overall Requirement 17: For interactive TV content, provide something extra and do not just repeat something from the television show.

9.2.4. Future/Possibilities

The last category deals with the current and future possibilities of interactive TV. Subcategories deal with opportunities to profit from interactive TV, to include end users in the development, and a look at the more distant future.

9.2.4.1. Revenue/Advertisement Possibilities

HbbTV offers new and interesting opportunities for revenue. It is possible to create very unobtrusive ways of advertisement on a second screen for instance. It is also possible to offer targeted advertisement or advertisement that is related to the show that would be far more interesting for viewers then general commercials.

Advertisement possibilities are there (D)

Advertisements (S)

Pay per view services (S)

Related requirements are: Req.15, Req.34, and Req.35

Overall Requirement 18: Make sure advertisements in interactive TV are not disruptive. Overall Requirement 19: Make advertisements relevant to the show and thereby more

interesting to the user.

9.2.4.2. Future Tech

HbbTV also offers the opportunity to experiment with new technologies. Like virtual reality or multi camera systems.

Virtual reality (S)

73 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Multi-camera displays (S)

The related requirements are: Req.38 and Req.42

Overall Requirement 20: Explore the possibilities of new tech like VR and multi camera displays in interactive TV.

9.2.4.3. Co-Design

To final category is also very interesting the Spanish pilot observed some innovative users who connected a laptop to their traditional TV set thereby creating a crude HbbTV type system. These users also had wild ideas about how to take the concept of HbbTV further when the concept was explained to them. It could prove very valuable to find a way to involve these users into HbbTV development.

Capitalizing lead user feedback (some innovative users have modified existing systems their feedback can be very valuable) (S)

The related requirement is: Req.43.

Overall Requirement 21: Involve innovative users in creating new apps and systems for

interactive TV.

9.3. List of Combined User Requirements

Overall Requirement 01: Give users the option to watch what they want when they want.

Overall Requirement 02: Video quality and performance for streams should be improved and/or selectable

Overall Requirement 03: Applications and hardware need to have very low thresholds to get users started.

Overall Requirement 04: For continued use robustness ease of use consistency and intuitiveness are key.

Overall Requirement 05: When using multiple screens, synchronization should be effortless to setup and work flawlessly.

Overall Requirement 06: Do not clutter the main screen too much this is distracting for viewers.

Overall Requirement 07: When using multiple screens, carefully balance the activity between them so they don’t interfere.

Overall Requirement 08: If you want users to visit content provided on a second screen outside of the shows broadcast, provide added value beyond the show.

Overall Requirement 09: Give users the option to ‘bookmark’ interesting items form the show or second screen so they can review them at their leisure when the show is done.

Overall Requirement 10: If you offer polls to users make sure the issues are not trivial so they can lead to discussion.

74 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Overall Requirement 11: If you ask the user for input try to make his/her answer have an impact.

Overall Requirement 12: Offer the user the ability to customize TV content.

Overall Requirement 13: Recommendation systems should be easy to use offer high quality recommendations while being as little privacy invasive as possible.

Overall Requirement 14: Integrate social media directly or through convenient linking/sharing features but consider the suitability of the TV show.

Overall Requirement 15: Interactive TV applications should support and stimulate social interactions that arise during TV viewing.

Overall Requirement 16: Keep the user engaged by offering a high enough level of activity from the combination of the show and interactive TV extras but make sure to balance it so they don’t interfere with each other.

Overall Requirement 17: For interactive TV content, provide something extra and do not just repeat something from the television show.

Overall Requirement 18: Make sure advertisements in interactive TV are not disruptive.

Overall Requirement 19: Make advertisements relevant to the show and thereby more interesting to the user.

Overall Requirement 20: Involve innovative users in creating new apps and systems for

interactive TV.

Overall Requirement 21: Explore the possibilities of new tech like VR and multi camera displays in interactive TV.

75 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


10. 2nd iteration user requirements

In this second iteration (which took place from M13-M16), the goal was to focus on gathering requirements for the specific applications that were being developed in the three pilots. That way, the requirements from the first iteration could be refined and expanded leading to more targeted results.

This section first lists the focus points for each pilot in this second iteration, after which the methods and results for each pilot are described.

10.1. Focus points for second iteration

Each pilot serves a different region, with local variations such as broadcasting history, technical capabilities and cultural background. Therefore, each pilot has different focus points that are used as a starting point for gathering user requirements in this second iteration. The focus points for each pilot were gathered by sending out a request to each partner to provide the focus points of their pilot.

The following focus points, formulated as questions, were collected:

German Pilot

• What are the habits, expectations and interests of young TV viewers in the context of the German pilot application?

Dutch Pilot

• DRM: • What do people expect from video-on-demand services (functionality, content

offer, pricing, quality…)? • Recommender

• How do people decide what to watch (sources)? • How do they use broadcast and on-demand services together? When do they

use which kind of TV? • How does their viewing relate to their everyday viewing behaviour?

• Second Screen • What kind of game would people create to play along with a TV-show? • How do people interact with that game and each other while watching TV? • What (game) elements do they add and what do those elements bring to the

experience?

Spanish Pilot

• What do households need when engaging in multi-camera HbbTV applications in terms of content, UX, interaction & participation, quality & performance?

11. German Pilot Requirements – 2nd iteration

While the first iteration of gathering end user requirements for the German Pilot was of a more general nature, because a target group for the pilot service had not been defined then, the second iteration focused on the needs of the target group in order to achieve the best possible results in the second pilot phase of the transmedia service.

This section describes the specific approach of gathering end-user requirements for the second phase of the German pilot. The discussion starts with the specific user research methods used,

76 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


then introduces the participants that took part in the actions, and ends with the presentation of the research outcomes.

11.1. Methods Used

For the second iteration of gathering End User Requirements concerning the German Pilot, RBB interviewed 7 members of the target group. In face-to-face interviews on two days the habits, expectations and interests of seven young TV viewers were explored in order to compare potential differences between the habits and expectations of the different age groups. In the first iteration, when the content of the Pilot Services had not been decided, the interviewees had been RBB affiliates between 30-49. In the second iteration, when it was clear that the content focus in TV-Ring would be on young TV viewers, a comparative study became necessary.

The interviews were structured in three phases, trying to find out whether the chosen topic and (technical) realization actually met the target group’s expectations and requirements.

11.1.1. Overall structure of the interviews and main motivations

The tests took place at RBB premises in a room with comfortable chairs and a large TV screen.

All test users were welcomed and briefly introduced to what was going to happen. Besides the young test persons there were two test hosts in the test room while their parents were nearby in a room next door. The two test hosts shared and exchanged tasks, i.e. with the first interviewee one would guide the test while the other would take notes, then the first would take notes while the other would lead the interview.

The tests were structured as follows:

1) Introduction to the general topic of the TV series and the HbbTV application – Presentation

The interview situation was new to the interviewers mainly because many things we wanted to find out about were new to the interviewees. Interviewing adults with a certain experience in the use of TV and new media is quite straightforward in that their past experience in these areas will help them to articulate their expectations and requirements. For young users, however, who are not familiar with HbbTV and are familiar with new media only to limited extent, this would be considerably more difficult.

One of the main motivations to use a kids’ program for the German Pilot was to win young TV viewers for innovative TV formats who might otherwise be lost to competitors like YouTube, Vimeo and other Internet-based content platforms in the long run. Finding out about requirements of a target group which is young enough

2) Exploration of HbbTV Application – Talking aloud-Method

As it could not be taken for granted that all participants would be familiar with the technology it seemed necessary to allow some time for exploring the application. Testers were not introduced in the application or, more general, in the use of HbbTV but were observed in how they reacted to the (for them) new situation that they could consume interactive content on a TV screen. They were asked to speak out aloud what they think they can do and later what kind of content they would expect behind any individual button.

77 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


3) Interests and Requirements - Semi-structured interview

After these two phases of getting familiar with the application testers were explicitly asked about their interests and needs in a semi-structured interview.

11.2. Participants

Testers were recruited from a list of RBB affiliates that the team often contacts for user tests. In this case only those testers could participate who had children in the respective age group.

Table 6 Participants German Pilot Second Round

Participant Gender Age Profession/User profile

1 F 11 Pupil

2 M 9 Pupil

3 F 9 Pupil

4 F 7 Pupil

5 M 10 Pupil

6 F 11 Pupil

7 F 15 Pupil

11.3. Data analysis

The test notes were discussed and summarized in a session with the test manager who had laid out the test concept but not participated in the tests themselves. Thus the test results as summarized by the test hosts were boiled down from a subjective experience report to more objective test results.

11.4. Results

The results of the user research carried out in the German pilot can be grouped under the following main themes:

Theme 1 - Unclear Labelling

In some cases test users did not know what to expect behind a link/button.

Theme 2 – Unclear Relations

Related content was generally welcomed, but at times the relations were not clear.

Theme 3 – More Multimedia

It became clear that test users in most cases expected (and preferred) related content to be

multimedia content, especially video.

Theme 4 – Topic Preferences

Although “falling in love” is an interesting topic for the target group and everyone talks about

it, topics like sports and animals were explicitly mentioned as being more interesting.

78 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Theme 5 – Voting and Participation

Various forms of participation were mentioned as being of special interest. While Voting and a

Quiz had been part of the HbbTV service already, chats with other users and possible influence

on the turn of the story were mentioned explicitly as potential added value.

The following results show the requirement categories identified. Each requirement is



11.4.1. Unclear Labelling

As all links in the app were represented by thumbnail images test persons were sometimes uncertain what to expect behind certain links.

“Oh, I thought this was another video” (Interviewee 1)

Test users largely agreed that it was not always clear, whether pressing OK on the Remote Control would open an image, video or text. This must be labelled more clearly.

Req.31 The UI must make clear whether the link leads to an image, video or text

11.4.2. Unclear Relations

In the Stage View of every content category a number of related content items were presented underneath the “stage” where the actual content would be displayed. At some times users would have preferred the relations with the main content to be more obvious.

“Who is this Sofia and why should I read her short profile here?” (Interviewee 5)

“This is about Alina so why is there a video about the loft?” (Interviewee 7)

This seemed to be more a matter of patience than of relevance. All interviewees who had made such or similar statements found out the relations quite quickly when they actually followed the links. After revising the list of related content items and their connections with the main episodes or characters some less relevant items were taken from the list, but in general the editors stick to the general approach of generating curiosity by leaving room for exploring of what the actual connections may be. Mostly they become clear very quickly.

Req.32 Related Content must be clearly related, but the relation need not be obvious

11.4.3. More Multimedia

Six of seven interviewees mentioned that video is more interesting to them than textual enrichments.

“Had I known it was only text, I would not have clicked it” (Interviewee 2)

79 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


These remarks underline that TV is a very visual, or even more, a video-based world. Although (Video)Text still is a success story in Germany younger users tend to expect video rather than text when they consume extra content on a TV device.

Req.33 Enrichments should primarily be video or at least images.

11.4.4. Topic Preferences

“Falling in love” did not seem to be the favourite topic of some of the interviewees while others indeed liked it. One of the interview questions was, whether they liked the program in general.

“It was okay, but with animals it would have been much cooler.” (Interviewee 6)

“Love is not for me. I’d rather have sports or animals.” (Interviewee 5)

Actually the documentary series had two topics: it was a “behind the scenes” documentation of a film production, including the coaching of non-professional actors and the topic of the “film in the film” was “The three stages of love” which led to “conflict” situations when the youth actors felt strange when they had to kiss someone they did not know. While some liked the approach others would have preferred different topics. All in all, the editors were happy to see that the application as such was approved so that a similar project with other topics would be even more welcomed.

Req.34 Animals and sports seem to be good topics for this age group

11.4.5. Voting and Participation

Some of the interviewees explicitly asked for more interaction and participation

“Can I also see what others say about this?” (Interviewee 7)

“It would be cool, if I could make them do things.” (Interviewee 1)

Young people’s definition of interaction goes further than it does for most users beyond 30. Social interaction and game-like interaction with content are features that young users would like to see.

Req.35 More possibilities to interact and participate would be welcomed.

11.5. Conclusions from second iteration

Although all interviewees (and their parents) confirmed that watching TV for them still is mostly a lean-back experience, content enrichments and possibilities to interact are very welcomed by the young target group. In terms of related content the focus can be put even more on video, especially when it is offered in a (Hbb)TV environment.

While the older interviewees in the first requirements gathering phase had explicitly stressed a need for better video quality this was not mentioned in the second test; probably because the service already provided high quality content.

80 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Both groups however agreed that social interaction and participation are important which confirms RBB’s approach for the second phase, which will include live interaction via social networks integrated in the HbbTV application.

11.5.1. List of user requirements from second iteration

Req.31 The UI must make clear whether the link leads to an image, video or text Req.32 Related content must be clearly related Req.33 Enrichments should primarily be video Req.34 Animals and sports seem to be good topics for this age group Req.35 More possibilities to interact and participate would be welcomed

12. Dutch Pilot Requirements – 2nd iteration

In the Dutch pilot there are three different application scenarios: the DRM module, the recommender, and the second screen research line. Therefore, the respective requirements will also be addressed in separate sections.

12.1. DRM Requirements

This section describes the specific approach of gathering end-user requirements for the Dutch DRM pilot. We will first explain the method used, including the participants involved in the study. Then, we will present the main findings.

12.1.1. Methods Used

For the DRM pilot, we conducted 7 in-home interviews with a selection of the Dutch pilot participants. By conducting these in-depth interviews in the homes of the households, we were able to get a richer insight into the actual context. The goal was to understand what people expect from video-on-demand services, what people would be willing to pay for these services, and which elements or features of such services are essential to address for them to pay for video-on-demand services.

The interviews were semi-structured, which means that an interview guide was constructed beforehand with the topics covering our research questions; the order in which these questions were answered, however, is not important. In these semi-structured interviews we aim to have a natural conversation; a strict order of the questions can be detrimental in this regard. So in the end we only need to make certain every topic has been addressed.

12.1.1. Participants

The participants were recruited from the user panel at NPO, the user panel that participants in all the pilots. 7 households chose to take part. A gift certificate for 30 euros for an online store was provided for participation. The interviews took place on 30/11/2014 in Dordrecht, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, on 13/12/2014 in Alkmaar, and on 14/12/2014 in Wijckel, Rotterdam and Vlaardingen – all in The Netherlands. This research was carried out by iMinds/KU Leuven.

81 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Table 7 Participants Dutch DRM Interviews Second Round

Household Type Age Profession/User profile

1 Elderly couple

that occasionally

have their

grandchildren

over

70 M

68 M

Retired

2 Young couple / Working (IT)

3 Young couple

with young child

30 M, 27 F

1 (girl)

Self-employed

4 Young couple

with young child

40 (parents)

7 (boy)

Working (parents: IT, Freelance

musician)

School (child)

5 Single man 37 Working (IT)

6 Older single man 62 Retired

7 Older single man 65 Working (hotel guide)

12.1. Data analysis

For analysis, the interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo, a software package for qualitative analysis. By coding the interview transcripts, several themes emerged from the data.

12.2. Results

The themes that emerged from the data were:

Theme 1 – Many separate services

Today, many TV and video services are available in each country. This means that people, when they want to have many options, are sometimes obliged to purchase several services; this lead to several difficulties on their part.

Theme 2 – Not enough content

Many participants complained that there is not enough content available. This was regarding to our pilot, but also in general when considering TV and video services.

Theme 3 – Content is not added fast enough

When content is launched in the US, people in The Netherlands do not want to wait 6 months to be able to see it here.

Theme 4 – High quality content is important

82 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Many participants indicated that high quality content is important, though not for every type of content.

12.2.1. Many separate services

The participants in our pilot did not use the DRM application a lot. One of the reasons is that such an application should not be judged on its own; people are already using and paying for many other services. Therefore, when looking at the value and the willingness-to-pay, it is important to look at the whole from the user’s perspective. Besides the willingness-to-pay aspect, it is also a burden from a usability point of view, because people have to keep switching between services. From a content point of view, it is not always easy to grasp the offerings and the availability of these offerings because each service usually has its own conditions.

A father illustrates: “I use it, but when I’m watching ‘Uitzending Gemist’ [public broadcaster’s normal quality free catch-up service] then I view it via ‘NL Ziet’ [public broadcaster’s higher quality, subscription catch-up service]. The quality is better. What I find regrettable, is that it is yet another separate service. I just took a trial subscription; the first month was free. The problem is that I also have ‘Netflix’, with a lot of series, and then also ‘NL Ziet’, which is another 9 euros. Then I just think: ‘why can’t they just put it in ‘Netflix’?’.”

Another couple illustrates how catch-up services can be problematic for accessing certain content, since there are restrictions in how far you can go back in time.

Father: “Suppose, you could take a kind of ‘Uitzending Gemist’ subscription, then it is interesting that you go back in time for weeks or even months for content, so that it is more like an archive. Now, you can only go back a week.”

Mother: “what you can do with Netflix off course is access entire seasons.”

Req.36 Companies that offer video and TV services should take the point of view of the user and look at possibilities to integrate their content with other companies in order to make things easier for the consumer.

12.2.2. Not enough content

Participants do not really view enormous amounts of content; rather they each have their own preferences for content. This means that the combined set of possible content for all households is huge; basically, from a viewer perspective, they want to have access to anything they would like to see. In practice however, current video and TV services are often limited in their offerings, which then requires that viewers have to purchase several services. And even then, they probably are not able to access everything they would like.

A father: “immediately when it is broadcasted in America, we also have it [via downloads]”. Netflix is just a little slower. We would like a paid service, but it just hasn’t worked out yet.” “Well yes, we wanted to watch via Netflix, but it is running behind and it doesn’t have all the shows”.

Req.37 It is important that the libraries contain enough content because the possible preferences can be quite broad.

83 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


12.2.3. Content is not added fast enough

It is not only the amount of content, which is important; also the speed at which new content is added to the service matters. Oftentimes, drama series first come out in the US. After a couple of months they are launched here. Participants do not want to wait for this.

A father: “immediately when it is broadcasted in America, we also have it [via downloads]”. Netflix is just a little slower. We would like a paid service, but it just hasn’t worked out yet.” “Well yes, we wanted to watch via Netflix, but it is running behind and it doesn’t have all the shows”.

Req.38 Content should be launched worldwide at the same time, because that is what many viewers expect.

12.2.4. High quality content is important

Participants really wanted to see high quality content. Most of them had HD TVs. It does not mean that every type of content needs to be high quality.

A single man: “When I see what I can download, a 24-bit color, which corresponds to a 12 Mbit stream with them [Netflix], then you lose a lot of pixels to color. I can just notice the difference.”

A grandfather: “I find image quality very important. Well, if there is a jazz program on with music from the fifties, it’s really about the music”.

Req.39 Content should be provided in high quality, especially for certain genres.

12.3. List of DRM (Willingness-To-Pay) Requirements

Req.40 Companies that offer video and TV services should take the point of view of the user and look at possibilities to integrate their content with other companies in order to make things easier for the consumer.

Req.41 It is important that the libraries contain enough content because the possible preferences can be quite broad.

Req.42 Content should be launched worldwide at the same time, because that is what many viewers expect.

Req.43 Content should be provided in high quality, especially for certain genres.

12.4. Recommender Requirements – 2nd iteration

This section describes the specific approach of gathering end-user requirements for the Dutch Recommender pilot. We will first explain the method used, including the participants involved in the study. Then, we will present the main findings.


For the Recommender pilot, we conducted 7 in-home interviews with a selection of the Dutch pilot participants (this data gathering occurred simultaneously with the DRM gathering). By conducting these in-depth interviews in the homes of the households, we were able to get a richer insight into the actual context. The goal was to understand the viewing habits and patterns in different types of households, and to derive typical situations that relate to specific contextual factors. The end goal is to adapt the recommender to these situations; the recommendations should become better suited to the context of the household.

84 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


The interviews were semi-structured, which means that an interview guide was constructed beforehand with the topics covering our research questions; the order in which these questions were answered, however, is not important. In these semi-structured interviews we aim to have a natural conversation; a strict order of the questions can be detrimental in this regard. So in the end we only need to make certain every topic has been addressed.


The participants were recruited from the user panel at NPO, the user panel that participants in all the pilots. 7 households chose to take part. A gift certificate for 30 euros for an online store was provided for participation. The interviews took place on 30/11/2014 in Dordrecht, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, on 13/12/2014 in Alkmaar, and on 14/12/2014 in Wijckel, Rotterdam and Vlaardingen – all in The Netherlands. This research was carried out by KU Leuven/iMinds. These participating households were the same as for the DRM pilot; the two topics were covered during the same interview.

Table 8 Participants Dutch Recommender Interviews Second Round

Household Type Age Profession/User profile

1 Elderly couple

that occasionally

have their

grandchildren

over

70 M

68 M

Retired

2 Young couple / Working (IT)

3 Young couple

with young child

30 M, 27 F

1 (girl)

Self-employed

4 Young couple

with young child

40 (parents)

7 (boy)

Working (parents: IT, Freelance

musician)

School (child)

5 Single man 37 Working (IT)

6 Older single man 62 Retired

7 Older single man 65 Working (hotel guide)

12.5. Data analysis

For analysis, the interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo, a software package for qualitative analysis. By coding the interview transcripts, several themes

85 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


emerged from the data.

12.6. Results

The themes that emerged from the data were:

Theme 1 – Type of content

The type of content plays a significant role in the way it is consumed. A number of genres are mostly viewed via broadcast TV; other types are more typical for on-demand viewing.

Theme 2 – Re-watching content

Many companies focus on novel content, and the best way to deliver this. However, we have established that many people also enjoy content they have already seen at some point.

Theme 3 – Sources people use to find interesting content

People use many different sources to find what to watch, from the traditional paper TV guide, over tips from friends and colleagues, to dedicated sites such as IMDb and TV.com.

Theme 4 – Typical viewing situations

In D3.2 we already reported on the typical viewing situations in households with several children. Whereas that study was conducted with Belgian families, we were now able to confirm these viewing situations with Dutch households. The insights that these viewing situations and their respective contextual factors provide can help to offer the right recommendations at the right time to the right people.

12.6.1. Type of content

The type of content is very important when considering recommender systems. We found that a number of genres are more likely to be watched via broadcast TV: important events that generate a lot of buzz, such as international sporting events (example 1); live TV shows that generate a lot of buzz and run for a number of weeks leading up to a big finale (example 2); news and more in-depth programs for current events (example 3).

Example 1:

Grandfather: “And when there is something very special such as the WC football for example, we don’t like football at all. But we liked it; we saw it in a number of cafés in Volendam. That is an experience, in a pub tucked together with about 500 fans.”

Example 2:

Mother: “’Wie is de mol?’, that is something we always discuss right after the broadcast.”

Father: “yes, even with the whole family”

Mother: “Then, we discuss it with our family, and with whom we are watching it; whether we are watching over there, or they are watching over here.” “These are still moments that we are watching live TV and that we plan our entire evening around it. So everything has to move a little bit.”

Example 3:

Father: “Yes, the news, that occurs every day. News and current events. That depends on what day it is. What day is ‘Twee Vandaag’ or ‘Nova’, or what is it called today? ‘Nieuwsuur’ and those kinds of programs. It is the public broadcaster. The news is around 20h; current events is more like 22h.”

86 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Other types of content are more related to on-demand viewing. Typical examples of such content are American serial programs such as “Breaking Bad”.

Req.44 Consider the type of content you are offering and the way you are offering it: broadcast or on-demand.

12.6.2. Re-watching content

A lot of participants can enjoy watching content that they have already seen at some point. For movies it usually relates to ‘focused viewing’; for other typical content that is associated with re-watching content such as comedy series, it relates more to ‘ambient’ viewing. The latter means that people might be doing a lot of other things in the living room when these shows are broadcast such as checking social media on a laptop, or taking care of household chores.

A single man illustrates: “Certainly with cartoons this is the case. Family Guy for example, American Dad, those kinds of things. Those things are endlessly repeatable for me. You can easily see this 10 or 20 times. It also means that you are not really watching it. It is just ‘filling the time’.”

Another reason why people re-watch content again, is to get back up to speed on the story right before a new season is about to start:

“You have the cliff-hanger right before you enter the new season of a series. Then I always watch the two latest episodes as preparation of the new season. There are these series of which 12 episode per year are made; three quarters of a year are in between, so then you have lost it a little bit.”

Req.45 Do not only focus on new content; also take into account that people in certain situations also like to watch content they have already seen again.

12.6.3. Sources people find to watch interesting content

In order to find, or less consciously encounter, interesting new content to watch, people consult many different sources: social media, EPG, paper TV guide, news paper, dedicated sites, friends, family and colleagues.

About the use of dedicated sites

Interviewer: “So how about the actors? Do you really go looking for information about the show?”

Mother: “Yes, the one we are already watching; then we look up a number of categories. Moreover, at the shows you also see: ‘you like Game of Thrones, perhaps you like this one and this one too’. And then you go find out whether it looks interesting, or receives a good score from IMDb.”

About social media:

Mother: “for me it is social media I think. There things you see passing by on Facebook, of which you think… if it’s some kind of hype. It’s in this way you get curious”.

Req.46 Be aware of the different source people use to find new interesting content; find synergies between these sources and make it easy for people to use each individual source and subsequently queue or watch it at home in one smooth action sequence.

87 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


12.6.4. Typical viewing situations

The viewing situations that we described in D3.2 have largely been confirmed with the Dutch households involved in this study. One such typical moment involves the watching of on-demand content after the children have gone to bed.

Mother: “At 19.30h she goes to bed, or sometimes a little bit earlier, it depends on how tired she is. So from 19.30h on she lies in bed; from that moment on we start watching series together.”

When people are arriving home from work it usually takes some time to feel relaxed; at this time they also engage in several household activities such as preparing supper or having supper. During these times certain types of content are ideal:

Father: “’De Wereld Draait Door’ [a very popular Dutch talk show] is also such a show. It’s about something but it is not too difficult, so you don’t really have to think hard about it. And the subject is interesting at one time, the next time it is not, but you are able to continue watching. That’s indeed a moment of arriving home from work and pff…”

Children seem to watch a lot of TV during weekend mornings for several reasons. Sometimes it is because of practical reasons – parents or grand parents wanting to stay in bed longer than their children or grandchildren who are usually awake a lot earlier.

Grandfather: “We make them watch TV from 7h to 8h sometimes, because we don’t like to get up at 7h in the morning. So we turn on a channel such as Jimjam or example”. “I usually stay for a while. Because it is cozy. But also, it is that quarter of an hour that I join them just to see what happens.”

At moments when people have a lot of time such as weekends or holidays, they take the time to watch longform content, sometimes alone, sometimes together with other family members.

Mother: “Sometimes we watch movies for children, movies for families”.

Father: “Yes, we watch those in the weekend when I’m at home. And bank holidays; the first of January for example. So [my son] gets to pick something.”

Req.47 Typical viewing situations and their related contextual elements are very important to offer the right content at the right time for the right people.

12.7. List of Recommender Requirements

Req.48 Consider the type of content you are offering and the way you are offering it: broadcast or on-demand.

Req.49 Do not only focus on new content; also take into account that people in certain situations also like to watch content they have already seen again.

Req.50 Be aware of the different source people use to find new interesting content; find synergies between these sources and make it easy for people to use each individual source and subsequently queue or watch it at home in one smooth action sequence.

Req.51 Typical viewing situations and their related contextual elements are very important to offer the right content at the right time for the right people.

12.8. Second Screen – 2nd iteration

For the second round of end-user requirements gathering, we wanted to delve deeper into the specific concepts for the Dutch pilots. For the second screen pilot this was about a companion app, that has quiz/game elements accompanying a program that is not a quiz or game itself.

88 version 1.6, 30/01/2015



To find out what type of play along game users would create for themselves, we recruited 9 groups of users. There were three groups of two, four groups of three and two groups of four participants. These were all groups that knew each other well and watched TV together at least occasionally. There were couples groups of friends and families. Age range was between 10 and 52 years old. The groups were invited to our living lab. The living lab is shaped like a living room for an impression see Figure 5.

Figure 5 Lab setup for seconds screen user test

Participants were instructed that they would view an episode of The Voice of Holland. We chose the Voice of Holland and not the Voice van Vlaanderen to be sure that none of our participants had watched the specific episode.

Before they would start viewing the episode they were asked to create a game that they could all participate in that they could play while watching the Voice. To help them create a game they were offered a selection of gaming attributes (see Figure 6 for an overview).

89 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Figure 6 Attributes participants could use to create their game.

The attributes included items to facilitate timing, score keeping, representation, and a random element. When they were done creating their game they were asked to explain it to the researcher. After the game was explained the episode was started and the participants were instructed to simply watch the show and play there game. After about an hour of watching the show and playing their game, the research leader stopped the show and performed and interviewed the participants on their experience.


We recruited ten groups of potential end-users. All groups consisted of between two and four people who knew each other well and at least occasionally watched TV together. The first group was intended as a pilot test but because the only change from the pilot session to the other sessions was the edition of a picture with all the jury members on it we felt it was ok to add them to the analysed results. Two groups created a game that was unrelated to the TV show. This was not explicitly forbidden but we felt these unrelated games created a very different experience for the players so we left these groups out of the analysis. An overview of the eight groups that were included in the analysis can be found in Table 9.

Table 9 Participants Dutch Second Screen Tests Second Round

Group Gender Age Relation to Each

Other

1(P) F ±20 Friends

90 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


F ±20 Friends

F ±20 Friends

M ±20 Friends

2 M 18 Son/Brother

F 14 Daughter/Sister

F 49 Mother

M 52 Father

3 M 11 Son

F 37 Mother

M 39 Father

4 F 28 Couple/Friend

M 27 Couple/Brother

M 19 Brother/Friend

5 F 26 Friends

F 29 Friends

F 27 Friends

6 F 18 Daughter/Friend

M 18 Friend

F 45 Mother/Friend

7 M 30 Couple

F 28 Couple

8 F 22 Couple/Friends

M 23 Couple/Friends

F 22 Friends

F 22 Friends

91 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


12.8.3. The games

This paragraph gives a quick overview of the game each group created. For each game there is a short description and a list of all the gameplay elements.

Group1

The participants all chose one of the jury members and a Lego figure to represent him or her. For every audition they had to say whether their jury member would turn around or not. And how many jury members would turn around in total. If they correctly guessed their jury members action they got to move one step forward on the board. If they also correctly guessed the amount of jury members to turn around they got to move two more squares forward. There were different denominations of play money depicted on the game board. Participants would receive the amount that was listed on the square they landed on. The figures on the board squares were random but generally increased in value further towards the end of the game board. The winner would be the one who made the most money at the end.

Elements:

The game-board, a progress element and an element of chance.

The Lego figures, representation and keeping track of progress.

Score and Vote papers, to indicate the guess/perform game actions

Play money, a score element.

The guessing/predicting of jury behaviour, a skill/gamble element

92 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Group2

They all received a starting amount of money. They would then gamble the money on how many jury members would turn around. The bet would correspond to how many people they thought would turn around, 20 if they thought non would turn, 40 for one, 60 for tow 80 for three, and 100 for four. If they were right they got all the money that was put in the pot. If nobody was right, the money would roll over to the next audition.

Elements:

Play money, as a score-keeping element.

Betting, a skill/gambling element.

93 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Group3

They each picked one jury member represented by a Lego figure. If their jury member turns first they get to move 4 forward second to turn 3 forward, third 2 forward and fourth one forward. If the audition candidate selects your jury member, you earn a joker. The joker serves as a get out of jail free card (i.e. if you have to pay money, loose all your money or have to skip a turn, you can avoid this punishment by handing in a joker). Every square on the board leads to a certain consequence. The positive figures will win you that amount of money the negative ones will loose you that money and that money goes into the pot. The red square means you loose all your money and that money goes into the pot, the yellow one is skip a turn, and the blue square wins you the pot.

Elements:

Game-board, progress tracking and a chance element

Play money, a score keeping element

Lego figures, a representation and progress keeping element

Get out of jail free pass, represented by playing cards, a score element in that you earn it and a tactical element in that can negate chance elements but has limited uses

94 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Group4

The participants had to gamble on which jury members would turn or not and who the candidate would eventually choose. If they were right they would earn a certain amount of money. This money could then be used to buy a ‘punishment’ for the other participants. Among the punishments were doing push-ups for 30 seconds, having a moustache drawn on your face, having to stand up until the next song finished and singing along with the next song. There was a second element to the game in which certain words were flagged. When one of these words were uttered on the TV show the first participant who hit the top of the hourglass, would earn money. They started just with three words but because they felt these were not said enough they added more words as the show went on.

Elements:

Hourglass, a speed/ action element.

Play money, a score-keeping element.

Punishments list, a reference element.

Speed reaction words list, a game rule element and a changing game element.

Betting, a gambling element.

95 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Group5

Each participant got four coloured markers they all had their own colour they also got one Lego figure each. When the candidate started singing the participants had to choose which jury members they thought would turn around by placing one of their coloured markers on the corresponding jury members picture. They would get one point per correct prediction. If they guessed the right number they would receive one extra point if they had the right number and the right jury members they would get yet another point. After the song they had to pick which jury member the candidate would choose by placing their Lego figure on the corresponding jury members picture. A correct guess would also earn them one point.

Elements:

Jury picture overview, keeping track of bets.

Coloured markers, keeping track of bets.

Score keeping note, score keeping element.

Rules note, reference element.

Lego figures, keeping track of bets.

96 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Group6

Participants created a gambling game. They all got a starting amount of play money of 500. For each audition they would pick which jury member the candidate would choose for by putting a certain amount of money on that jury members picture. If they guessed correct, they would earn all the money that was bet that turn. If no one guessed correctly or if the candidate didn’t get any jury members to turn around, the money would roll over to the next audition.

Elements:

Jury member squares, keeping track of bets.

Play money, score keeping element.

97 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Group7

When a candidate started singing, the hourglass was turned. Participants then had 30 seconds to write down the name of the jury member they thought the candidate would pick. If they were correct they would score a point. Points were kept by handing out red markers.

Elements:

Hourglass, a speed/timing element.

Orange notes, keeping track of bets.

Red markers, a score-keeping element.

98 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Group8

Every jury member was represented by a Lego figure. That Lego figure was placed on the picture of that jury member on the jury overview paper. When a candidate started singing, the hourglass was turned. Participants then had to grab a figure of a jury member they thought would turn around before the hourglass ran out. Whoever grabbed a figure first ‘got that jury member’. If you grabbed a jury member and he or she did indeed turn around, they got to throw a dice and earn 1-6 points according to the dice throw. If the candidate also selected to join the team of that jury member they would receive a bonus point. If they grabbed a figure and the corresponding jury member did not turn they would get a one-point penalty. If they didn’t grab a figure they did not lose a point but could not win one either.

Elements:

Hourglass, speed/pace element.

Dice, chance element.

Point keeping paper, score keeping element.

Lego figures, action element.

12.8.3.1. Elements overview

Table 10 Overview of Game Elements Across All Games

Element Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

Chance Element X X X 3

Gambling Element X X X 3

Prediction Element X X X X X X X 7

Progress Element X X 2

Score Element X X X X X X X X 8

Representation Element X X 2

99 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Consequences X 1

12.8.4. Data Analysis

The data gathered from the interviews was transcribed. Both the interviews and the games created were analysed. The researcher singled out all relevant quotes and observations from the data and turned them into snippets (individual notes). These snippets were then grouped according to their content. The emerging groups were given a name, which resulted in a number of categories. When all snippets were allotted to a category the categories were reviewed and an appropriate main/sub category structure was created.

12.8.5. Results

From the data analysis a number of different themes emerged. Below each theme will be discussed and the requirements that come from them are listed. The categories will also be linked to the found game elements where applicable.

12.8.5.1. The Show vs. The Game

Because the goal was to create a game to play while watching an episode of the Voice on TV, it is clear that there will be many ways in which the game and the TV show will influence each other.

Integrating the show and the game

This cluster is about using the elements from the show to ‘power’ the game. That is to say ways in which the show influences the game. What people like about t is that it feels natural to use elements from the show you are already watching to ‘power’ an accompanying game. Looking at the games created they all took the audition moment and following jury/candidate decision as a part that influenced their game in a certain way.

Why did you make the game you made? “It was the most obvious to do something with the turning around because that is also the main part of the voice.” (G7, F)

“ The choices are the most interesting thing of the show and now something is linked to that. You are always involved with the show about who will turn around and now there is something connected and its more fun to see who will turn.” (G4, M1)

“As a viewer you are already thinking about who is going to turn around and who will choose whom and in this case that is just put on paper as something extra.” (G5, F1) “I think that is also something you do automatically. When you watch a show, you always compare yourself to a certain group or person. You never stand completely outside of it.”(G5, F2)

Sometimes however there is also the feeling that the shows pacing limits the game mechanics. A solution could be to add more game elements like G4 did by introducing certain words that if they were said on the show could win them extra money.

“We should not have used only the songs for the game cause then meant we got too few turns.” (G3, F)

“Maybe we could have added something extra because sometimes we didn’t really have anything to do during the conversations and stuff.” (G1, F2)

100 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


“Yes sometimes we were just watching the show and were just waiting for the next candidate to start.” (G4, M2) “That’s why I liked the words cause that gave you something to do in between. But then you are more involved with the game then the show but I like that.” (G4, M1)

As some of the previous quotes already showed, viewers identify with the people they see on the show. This can also be seen in the games where two games had the players assume the role of jury members.

“That’s what you do in computer games link yourself to an avatar. You personify with a jury member you almost want to press the button yourself. You feel more involved.” (G3, M)

The findings that make up this cluster show that people are already invested in the show they are watching. Using elements from the show to influence the game feels natural and fun. From this we gather the following requirements.

Req.52 Let elements of the show directly influence the rules of a second screen game. Req.53 Have the game increase identification of viewers with people from the show.

Distraction vs. Engagement

Closely related to this is the concept of distraction vs. engagement. The game is an extra activity besides viewing the show which can lead to players being somewhat distracted from the show.

However a number of players also feel that they are more involved with the show, that paying attention to the show could increase their chance of winning and because of the close relation between the show and the game it actually increases their engagement to the show.

“I wasn’t really good at it but it was fun to do it also makes it more exciting. Normally it is just watching them sing and now you are really listening well and everything they say before they start to sing can be important so you listen to it more carefully.” (G2, F1) “Yes normally if we watch to the Voice ‘D’ doesn’t watch the ‘talking’ but now you are thinking I gambled this much how will it turn out. So you are paying more attention.” (G2, F2)

“Because you want to win. You have the idea that if you watch the show you can actually estimate better what the candidates will choose. But in the end it is really gambling.” (G6, M)

Req.54 Let occurrences on the show have an (perceived) impact on the game to focus viewer attention.

Three groups added an hourglass to the game they all used it to limit the time they got to make a choice in predicting jury decisions. Besides the added action element, two groups mentioned this also made the periods outside these 30 seconds more relaxed.

We thought it was a good idea to take the 30s because then everybody has the same time. In 30 you have to make your choice and you also have the time after that to just watch the show. (G7, M)

“Otherwise you would be stressing throughout the song should I still make a choice?” (G8, M) “Yes after the 30seconds you know the choice has been made.” (G8, F1)

Req.55 To lessen distraction, confine the games decisive moments to brief periods.

101 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


12.8.5.2. The Game vs. Players

The clusters in this section deal with the way the players interact with the game and with each other.

Skill vs. Chance

One of the main debates between the participants is the one between skill and chance factors determining the outcome of the game. Some prefer chance to be the main determinant because it makes for a level playing field.

“I just think it would be fun to have everything depend on chance. And then everyone will always have the same chance. And that is also exciting.” (G2, M)

“If you play something like trivial pursuit it is unequal but if you play a game where chance is determined by the TV show it is chance that determines the outcome and that makes it more fun/homey <Dutch ‘gezellig’>. Otherwise it is always the same who wins.” (G3, F)

“Because it is not about being smarter to win but you all have the same chance to win. Nobody is disadvantaged to win.” (G6, M)

Others prefer skill to be the main determinant because it gives them a feeling of control and more accomplishment if they end up being the winner.

“Then it is in your own hands. If you think it will be four and the dice shows one that’s terrible. (G2, F2) “I think it gives more satisfaction when you guess correctly.” (G2, M1)

“Sometimes you just have the feeling that a certain candidate will choose a certain jury member. If you have someone appointed to you cannot make that choice then.” (G8, F1)

There are also players that prefer to have a combination of the two. Also in two games, skill affected if you would get points but chance determined how many. The reason was so that you always had the feeling you could still catch up.

“You try and steer ‘chance’ a bit. It gives me more of a feel of victory if I have the idea that I had control of it even if it’s just for a small part. I want to win but I don’t want to just chance to decide. You don’t have the feeling you measured yourself to the others if it’s just about chance. You have the same for monopoly, the dice serves as a chance factor but the actions you take are also important.” (G3, M)

“The feeling that you can still win even if you haven’t guessed right a few times, you can think next time ill just score a six.” (G8, F1)

From these findings it seems best to create a game that has enough chance involved so that anyone can win and you won’t be out of the game after just a few ‘misses’ but also put in enough of a skill factor so participants feel in control and accomplished when they win.

Req.56 Have enough (perceived) skill elements to make a victory feel rewarding. Req.57 Have enough chance elements so that anyone can win and comebacks are possible.

Goals and Consequences

All of the games included a scorekeeping element, which was used to determine a winner at the end of the game. The main reason that was stated to keep score was to have the goal of

102 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


winning included in the game, to have something ‘at stake’. Most participants claimed this lead to more excitement.

“It was a fun show and a fun game especially when something is at stake, with the (play) money and all.” (G1, F2)

“Even though it is fake money you still play to win. (G6, F1) “It is real in your mind.” (G6, M)

“I thought it was very important that there were points so you could see at the end who was the best. Because then you have a goal in the game and not just a game.” (G7, F)

One of the groups took it a bit further and included a form of punishments as consequences for the same reason to add to the excitement and the fun.

“Because there is something at stake. You know that if you win you get money and can spend it to draw a beard on someone for instance.” (G4, M2) “It becomes more interesting because instead of them turning around and you knowing a candidate goes through now you win money and can do something with it.” (G4, M1) “You get something from it yourself, normally it is just the person on TV that gets something from it. You get enjoyment form it yourself, when you watch normally you might sympathize with a candidate if you like him or her but not as intense as now.” (G4, F)

Req.58 Have something at stake, at the very least have points and a winner

Social Interaction

A big part of the enjoyment seemed to come from the interaction between the people playing the game. Sharing laughs commenting to each other and the competitive feeling of wanting to beat the others. All our participants knew each other well and this seems an important factor in the enjoyment of playing and watching together.

“That you have fun with friends. That you sat together and shared laughs, that is also part of watching TV. You can also watch alone but with others its more fun you also comment to each other, you sit together with friends you laugh and have a fun evening.” (G4, M1)

“That is fun with people you know but if it was with anonymous people I wouldn’t care you would just beat strangers.” (G6, F2) “Yes you can’t enjoy beating strangers just as much because you don’t know them.” (G6, F1) “You can come back to it if you know them. Tomorrow you can remind them about it.” (G6, F2)

“We watch a lot of TV together and I think its nice if there is a more social component added to it and not just sitting next to each other and watching TV. And I like games so if it can be combined with something I also enjoy like TV that’s even better. I would also like to do this with friends.” (G8, M)

Req.59 Focus on competition between people who know each other.

12.8.6. List of Second Screen Requirements

Req.52 Let elements of the show directly influence the rules of a second screen game. Req.53 Have the game increase identification of viewers with people from the show.

103 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Req.54 Let occurrences on the show have an (perceived) impact on the game to focus viewer attention.

Req.55 To lessen distraction, confine the games decisive moments to brief periods. Req.56 Have enough (perceived) skill elements to make a victory feel rewarding. Req.57 Have enough chance elements so that anyone can win and comebacks are possible. Req.58 Have something at stake, at the very least have points and a winner Req.59 Focus on competition between people who know each other.

13. Spanish Pilot Requirements

This section describes the specific approach of gathering end-user requirements for the Spanish pilot. The discussion starts with the specific user research methods used, and then introduces the participants that took part in the actions, and ends with the presentation of the research outcomes.

13.1. Methods Used

In the second iteration of T2.2, two main actions were performed in the Spanish pilot to elicit the requirements of the relevant stakeholders. End user research actions started with a round of eight contextual interviews conducted at three user panel households. This action was trailed by a requirements workshop, in which the insights generated with the feedback questionnaire for the first pilot phase, sent to the user panel participants, were collectively analyzed and discussed. This requirements workshop, in which the professionals involved in the pilot participated, served to analyze and structure the user data.

Table 11 Structure of end user requirements workshop for 2nd

iteration in Spanish pilot

Timeframe Activity

10’ Introduction. Explanation of workshop structure and procedures.

20’ Analysis of end user feedback from user questionnaire and contextual

interview

20’ In-depth discussion of main topics

40’ Development of high-level categories and subcategories on the

requirements canvas

20’ Selection of most relevant subcategories for the development of user stories

10’ Wrap-up and closure

After the meeting, more work was performed to transform the high-level topics into requirements, taking into account all relevant data from end user interviews and pilot evaluation.

104 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


13.2. Participants

A total of eight contextual interviews were carried out, in three households with different socio-demographic compositions. The end user profiles interviewed were the following:

Table 12 End user interview profiles for 2nd iteration in Spanish Pilot

Participant Sex Age User profile

1 M 29 Couple household

2 F 28 Couple household

3 F 26 Family household

105 version 1.6, 30/01/2015



5 M 57 Family household



8 M 53 Family household

Participants were contacted directly, and interviewed at a date and hour of their convenience in their households. The interviews were performed in front of the TV set. This allowed the researcher to follow the leads that the interviewees were opening up with their statements, and prompt them to elaborate more on their statements showing what they meant on the HbbTV pilot application when needed.

All data protection and privacy standards were observed, including a signed informed consent form, which ensures compliance with ethical and legal regulations (including the Spanish Organic Law 15/1999 of 13 December on the Protection of Personal Data, and the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data).

13.3. Data analysis

Following the contextual interviews, a requirements workshop took place. The goal of this focused work session was to develop a first set of end user requirements on the basis of the participants’ inputs, taking into consideration the stakeholder interviews that had been performed previously as well. In this workshop, the contextual interviews’ notes and questionnaire summary data were thoroughly analyzed.

13.4. Results The following results show the requirement categories identified. Each requirement is



13.4.1. Interaction and participation

In terms of interaction and participation, the high appeal of second screen solutions to users was apparent throughout the compiled research materials.

106 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Tablets and smartphones made a lot of sense to users as devices to which additional synchronized contents could be delivered to complement TV programs as seen on the main screen. What’s more, interviews revealed that second screens were not only attractive to receive contents, but also as input devices.

These results strongly suggest that end users are much more comfortable interacting with Connected TV applications via second screen companion applications on handheld devices, than via main screen options with their remote controls.

In connection to this, the poor usability of traditional remote controls for Connected TV applications was identified as one of the main stoppages for widespread adoption of the technology. Second screen applications hold the promise to remove this hindrance.

Req.60 Whenever possible, the second screen shall be the preferred locus of human-computer interactions for Connected TV applications.

Req.61 Options for second-screen remote control applications should be actively promoted.

13.4.2. Content

Proper selection of contents was an important point for users.

107 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Although the test HbbTV application deployed in the pilot was generally liked, the contents that were proposed to viewers (‘Oh Happy day!’ music show) were perceived as being a less-than-optimal choice. Probing on the causes of their dissatisfaction revealed certain general recommendations for the selection of multi-camera content.

First, multi-camera on demand doesn’t seem to interesting to users: if they watch these contents after the fact, they may as well just request the several available contents sequentially, without the need for a specific multi-camera application. And second, certain contents seem particularly suited for multi-camera services, mostly sports and news events: that is, live contents where action is happening at several locations at the same time, and where different profiles of users may have different opinions over what is most interesting to watch (i.e. in a Formula One race, some hard-core fans may want to watch their star most of the time, without much regard whether he’s fighting for the first or the eight place).

The higher-level lesson is that content is the main reason users have for the adoption of innovative HbbTV applications. Users want to use a particular HbbTV app because they are interested in new ways to access additional services for a particular content. This is to say, no matter how good a Connected TV application is, unless the offered content is suitable and interesting to viewers, users are likely to ignore the application.

Req.62 The contents for multi-camera applications make much more sense to the users if they are offered live, not on demand.

Req.63 The contents for multi-camera applications should be adaptable for such formats, with sports (football and Formula One) and high-impact news events being the most attractive contents.

Req.64 In a broad sense, the pull of compelling new contents for HbbTV applications must drive the uptake and adoption of the technology.

13.4.3. UX

In current Connected TV applications, ease of use is a critical factor in their success.

The severe limitations that traditional remote control devices place on users have a very high incidence on the user experience with an application. The user interface must be designed to minimize greatly the amount of time the user has to spend to complete any given task. If

108 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


something cannot be achieved in a few clicks, the functionality is likely to be perceived as too troublesome to use.

Req.65 The application’s GUI must be designed with clear affordances, in line with the recommendations of user-centered design and the results of the mockup evaluation.

13.4.4. Quality and performance

In HbbTV applications where the user is expected to switch from broadcast to broadband-provided content often, such as the pilot multi-camera app, performance is essential for a great user experience.

Thus, the delays in switching from consumption of broadcast video streams to broadband video streams should be kept at a minimum. Performance is impacted by the quality of the TV’s hardware, the speed of the user’s Internet connection, and the application’s computing requirements. Although users sporting high-end TV’s with super fast connections will naturally have better qualities of experience than users with the opposite conditions, it is important that even under sub-optimal conditions users have an acceptable quality of experience.

Req.66 The responsiveness of the application’s GUI should be increased to a level acceptable to the users.

Req.67 Delays in switching from broadcast to broadband should be minimal.

13.5. Conclusions from Spanish pilot second iteration

The user research actions performed in this second iteration of end user requirements gathering have led to the identification of a set of important requirements for the improvement of the TV-RING pilots and, more generally, of innovative HbbTV applications and services. Among these, a few recommendations stand out, such as the attractiveness of second screen applications to overcome the limitations of existing remote control devices. If traditional remote control devices are used, then interface designers must make sure to deliver a streamlined experience, with very simple navigations, clear affordances, and very few user actions needed to complete tasks.

For multi-camera services, the contents should be delivered live, and be carefully tailored to the user expectations. Finally, developers must create their apps with the bulk of the users in

109 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


mind, not just the privileged few with high-end TVs and ultra-fast broadband connections, and leave ample time for testing in a range of devices of different qualities and market segments.

13.5.1. List of professional requirements from second iteration

Req.60 Whenever possible, the second screen shall be the preferred locus of human-computer interactions for Connected TV applications.

Req.61 Options for second-screen remote control applications should be actively promoted. Req.62 The contents for multi-camera applications make much more sense to the users if they

are offered live, not on demand. Req.63 The contents for multi-camera applications should be adaptable for such formats, with

sports (football and Formula One) and high-impact news events being the most attractive contents.

Req.64 In a broad sense, the pull of compelling new contents for HbbTV applications must drive the uptake and adoption of the technology.

Req.65 The application’s GUI must be designed with clear affordances, in line with the recommendations of user-centered design and the results of the mockup evaluation.

Req.66 The responsiveness of the application’s GUI should be increased to a level acceptable to the users.

Req.67 Delays in switching from broadcast to broadband should be minimal.

14. Conclusions

This first iteration of user requirements gathering in the TV-RING project already provided many valuable insights into the three focus points that formed the basis of this activity:


What kind of quality do end users expect from HbbTV?

How can we design applications for specific target users or specific content types?

As the overall requirements show, a good user experience is crucial for the success of HbbTV applications. Not only should the applications work well, without any technical problems and with sufficient quality, they should also be easy to use. While these requirements hold true for most software applications nowadays, HbbTV applications have the added requirement of making sure that the extra features, whether on a second screen or as overlay on the first screen, do not distract too much from consuming the content users want to watch. This is a delicate balance that we will need to carefully consider when developing applications for each of the pilots.

As time shifting is becoming more popular, with people watching more delayed and on demand content than ever before, HbbTV applications also need to support this. Synchronization of overlays and second screen content with the content on the main screen is crucial for a good user experience, and delayed and on demand viewing makes this an important challenge. Moreover, users could also want to use the applications without the broadcast stream, but only if there is add value beyond the broadcast itself. The applications developed in the TV-RING project will have to take all these considerations into account.

When deciding on which content to provide, it should be clear for users that using the HbbTV application offers sufficient added value that they would not get without the HbbTV add-on.

110 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


Examples from our requirements are participating in the show, getting a personalised experience, sharing content through social media, enhancing social interaction in the living room or receiving extra content. These results show that there are many opportunities for our applications to offer this added value, but also that when it is not clear what the added value is, that users will quickly dismiss the application. Basing our applications on these requirements and taking an iterative development approach will make sure that we lower the risk that this will happen.

Our last set of requirements (from the second iteration) focused on development and future opportunities, and point out how we can drive the future of HbbTV applications by including users in the development process, an approach that we actively apply in this project. New technologies and advertising opportunities still have a lot of potential for future developments.

To conclude, the requirements gathered in this document are not only relevant as a basis for developing applications in the different pilots of the TV-RING project, but also offer more general recommendations for developing HbbTV applications that take into account a good user experience, time shifting, added value and future opportunities.

14.1. Impact on WP3

The results of the first iteration described in this deliverable were used in WP3 as a basis for developing the first prototypes. Although in each of the pilots different applications are being developed, the requirements are a common resource for making design decisions when prototyping these applications. Therefore, each pilot should document their prototype development by referring to the appropriate requirements that are implemented in the application. The refined requirements from the second iteration will be used in WP3 to fine-tune the applications during development and implementation.

14.2. Impact of T2.2 Iteration 2 As human-centred design is an iterative process, we conducted two iterations for gathering end-user requirements in T2.2. Taking into account the intermediate evaluations from WP3 and the specific prototypes developed in each pilot, the second round of requirements gathering looked deeper at specific questions and focus points that were not (sufficiently) addressed in the first iteration, but which are more directed at the applications that are being developed.

111 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


15. Bibliography & References

Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge: London.

Kristennson, P., Matthing, J., & Johansson, N. (2007). Key strategies for the successful involvement of users in the co-creation of new technology-based services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (4), pp. 474-491

Norman, D. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA

von Hippel, E. (1986), Lead users: a source of novel product concepts, Management Science, 32(7). pp. 791–806.

112 version 1.6, 30/01/2015


16. Annex. List of research documents, transcripts and

templates

This annex contains a list of all research documents and outputs generated by the user research actions at each pilot site. The original documents (interview transcripts, audio and video recordings, participant worksheets, and others) can be retrieved by following the links.

Please note that the files are password-protected for privacy and data protection purposes. The password can be obtained on demand, by sending an email to the following mail address stating the purpose of the enquiry: [email protected]

A few documents were shared or generated by all partners. These were:

- User research focus points and methods per pilot (methodological guide, in English, docx-file)

- Combined requirements workshop pictures (5 pictures, jpg files)

These documents can be retrieved at:

https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=68a21ed21e3b8c112e035531c8c61ce9

16.1. German pilot

The user research conducted at this pilot site yielded the following outputs:

- Interview notes (5 interviews, in German, pdf file)


https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=a944064d618070b84c3510b71ed84aa7

16.2. Dutch pilot


- Observation audio (5 contextual interviews, in Dutch, m4a files) - Observation transcripts (5 contextual interviews, in Dutch, docx files)


https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=e72726f419842de8496f9c188dba6277

16.3. Spanish pilot


- Interview audio (9 interviews, in Catalan, mp3 file) - Workshop audio (one co-creation workshop, in Catalan, mp3 file) - Workshop participant sheet model (2 worksheets, in Catalan, mp3 file) - Workshop pictures (20 pictures, jpg files)


https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=47a01f69b1baca4eb66fe33cf8b2bb14

mailto:[email protected]

https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=68a21ed21e3b8c112e035531c8c61ce9

https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=a944064d618070b84c3510b71ed84aa7

https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=e72726f419842de8496f9c188dba6277

https://files.i2cat.net/public.php?service=files&t=47a01f69b1baca4eb66fe33cf8b2bb14

DELIVERABLE - Europa...This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly...

Documents

Transcript of DELIVERABLE - Europa...This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly...