A hybrid method for quality evaluation in the context of use for mobile (3D) television

Multimedia Tools and Applications

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 185-225

  Jumisko Pyykkö, Satu ^a   Utriainen, Timo ^a  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Audiovisual quality; Context; Context of use; Evaluation; Experienced; Multimedia

Indexed keywords

AUDIOVISUAL QUALITY; CONTEXT; CONTEXT OF USE; EVALUATION; EXPERIENCED; MULTIMEDIA;

EXPERIMENTS; IMAGE COMPRESSION; SIGNAL PROCESSING; TELEVISION BROADCASTING; THREE DIMENSIONAL;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 80053602980     PISSN: 13807501     EISSN: 15737721     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-010-0573-4     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Barnard L et al (2007) Capturing the effects of context on human performance in mobile computing systems. Pers Ubiquit Comput 11:81-96 (Pubitemid 46189152)
2. Beresford K, et al. (2006) Contextual effects on sound quality judgements: listening room and automotive environments. AES 120th Convention:6648
3. Bernhaupt R, Mihalic K, Obrist M (2008) Usability evaluation methods for mobile applications. In: Lumsden J (ed) Handbook Res User Interface Des Evaluation for Mobile Technology XLIV:745-758
4. Boev A et al (2009) Classification and simulation of stereoscopic artifacts in mobile 3DTV content. Proc SPIE Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XX:7237(72371F)
5. Bradley NA, Dunlop MD (2005) Toward a multidisciplinary model of context to support context-aware computing. Hum Comput Interact 20(4):403-446
6. Brewster S (2002) Overcoming the lack of screen space on mobile computers. Pers Ubiq Comput 6:188-205
7. Buchinger S, Kriglstein S, Hlavacs H (2009) A comprehensive view on user studies: survey and open issues for mobile TV. Proc EuroITV '09:179-188
8. Chen T, Yesilada Y, Harper S (2008) RIAM D2.6: How do people use their mobile phones while they are walking? A field study of real-world small device usage. Research Report School of Computer Science, Univ of Manchester. http://hcw-eprints.cs.man.ac.uk/98/1/RIAM-D2-6-Field-Study.pdf
9. Consolvo S et al (2007) Conducting in situ evaluations for and with ubiquitous computing technologies. Int J Hum Comput Interact 22(1):107-122
10. Cook T, Campbell D (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin, New York
11. Coolican H (2004) Research methods and statistics in psychology, 4th edn. Arrowsmith, London
12. Cui Y, Chipchase J, Jung Y (2006) Personal television: a qualitative study of mobile TV users. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4471:195-204
13. DVB-H.org. http://www.dvb-h.org/. Accessed 15 December 2009
14. European Broadcasting Union (2003) Subjective listening tests on low-bitrate audio codecs. Tech 3296
15. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (2005) Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB): DVB-H implementation guidelines. ETSI TR 102 377 V1.2.1 (2005-11)
16. Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social cognition. McGrow-Hill, Singapore
17. Flack J, Harrold J, Woodgate GJ (2007) A prototype 3D mobile phone equipped with a next generation autostereoscopic display. Proc SPIE 6490(64900 M)
18. Fredrickson BL (2000) Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: the importance of peaks, ends and specific emotions. Cogn Emotion 14(4):577-606 (Pubitemid 30429314)
19. Ghinea G, Chen SY (2008) Measuring quality of perception in distributed multimedia: verbalizers vs. imagers. Comput Hum Behav 24(4):1317-1329 (Pubitemid 351551491)
20. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Lawrence Eribaum, Boston
21. Gochev A, et al (2009) Mobile 3D television: development of core technological elements and user-centered evaluation methods toward an optimized system. In: Creutzburg R, Akopian D (ed) Multimedia on Mobile Devices 2009:7256(1)
22. Goldsmith RE (2001) Using the domain specific innovativeness scale to identify innovative internet consumers. Internet Res Electron Netw Appl Policy 11(2):149-158
23. Goodman J, Brewster S, Gray P (2004) Using field experiments to evaluate mobile guides. In: Schmidt-Belz B, Cheverst K (ed) Proc HCI 2004
24. Grill-Spector K, Malach R (2004) The human visual cortex. Ann Rev Neurosci 27:649-677 (Pubitemid 39050416)
25. Gulliver SR, Ghinea G (2006) Defining user perception of distributed multimedia quality. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl 2(4):241-257 (Pubitemid 46174068)
26. Hands DS et al (2007) Price-dependent quality: examining the effects of price on multimedia quality requirements. Proc SPIE 6492(62920 N)
27. Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J Econ Lit 42(4):1009-1055 (Pubitemid 40406044)
28. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 139-183
29. ISO 13407 (1999) Human-centered design processes for interactive systems. Int Org Stand
30. ITU-R BT.500-11 (2002) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Int Telecommun Union-Radiocommun sector
31. ITU-T P.911 Recommendation P.911 (1998) Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia application. Int Telecommun Union-Telecommun sector
32. ITU-T Recommendation P.10 Amendment 1 (2008) Vocabulary for performance and quality of service, New Appendix I Definition of Quality of Experience (QoE). Int Telecommun Union
33. ITU-T. Recommendation E.800 (1994) Terms and definitions related to quality of service and network performance including dependability. Int Telecommun Union
34. Jambon F (2009) User evaluation of mobile devices: in-situ versus laboratory experiments. Int J Mobile Comput Hum Interact 1(2):56-71
35. Jumisko-Pyykkö S (2008) I would like to see the subtitles and the face or at least hear the voice: effects of picture ratio and audio-video bitrate ratio on perception of quality in mobile television. Multimed Tools Appl 36(1-2):167-184 (Pubitemid 350274743)
36. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Hannuksela MM (2008) Does context matter in quality evaluation of mobile television? Proc MobileHCI'08:63-72
37. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Strohmeier D (2008) Report on research methodologies for the experiments. MOBILE3DTV Technical report. http://sp.cs.tut.fi/mobile3dtv/results/tech/D4.2-Mobile3dtv-v2.0.pdf
38. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Utriainen T (2010) Experienced audiovisual quality for mobile 3D television. Proc 3DTV Conference 2010
39. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Vainio T (2010) Framing the context of use for mobile HCI. Int J Mobile-Human-Computer-Interaction IJMHCI 2(4)
40. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Häkkinen J, Nyman G (2007) Experienced quality factors-qualitative evaluation approach to audiovisual quality. Proc SPIE Multimedia on Mobile Devices 2007:6507(65070 M)
41. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Malamal Vadakital VK, Hannuksela MM (2008) Acceptance threshold: bidimensional research method for user-oriented quality evaluation studies. Int J Digit Multimed Broadcast 2008:712380
42. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Weitzel M, Strohmeier D (2008) Designing for user experience: what to expect from mobile 3D TV and video? Proc 1st Int Conf Designing Interact User Experiences TV and video 2008:183-192
43. Kaikkonen A et al (2008) Will laboratory test results be valid in mobile contexts? In: Lumsden J (ed) Handbook Res User Interface Design Evaluation for Mobile Tech. Information Science Reference, pp 897-909
44. Kennedy RS et al (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviation Psychol 3(3):203-220
45. Kim H, et al. (2002) An empirical study of the use contexts and usability problems in mobile internet. Proc 35th Ann Hawaii Int Conf System Sciences HICSS'02 5(5):132
46. Kjeldskov J et al (2004) Is it worth the hassle? Exploring the added value of evaluating the usability of context-aware mobile systems in the field. Proc MobileHCI 2004:61-73
47. Knoche H, Sasse MA (2009) The big picture on small screens delivering acceptable video quality in mobile TV. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl TOMCCAP 5(3):1-27
48. Knoche H, McCarthy J, Sasse MA (2006) Reading the fine print: the effect of text legibility on perceived video quality in mobile TV. Proc ACM Multimed 2006:727-730 (Pubitemid 47113617)
49. Knoche H, McCarthy J, Sasse MA (2008) How low can you go? The effect of low resolutions on shot types. Multimed Tools Appl 36(1-2):145-166 (Pubitemid 350274742)
50. Lewicki MS (2002) Efficient coding of natural sounds. Nat Neurosci 5(4):292-294
51. McCarthy JD, Sasse MA, Miras D (2004) Sharp or smooth?: Comparing the effect of quantization vs. framerate for streamed video. Proc CHI 2004:535-542
52. Mizobuchi S, Chignell M, Newton D (2005) Mobile text entry: relationship between walking speed and text input task difficulty. Proc MobileHCI'05 111:122-128
53. Mustonen T, Olkkonen M, Häkkinen J (2004) Examining mobile phone text legibility while walking. Ext Abstr Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '04:1243-1246
54. Nahrstedt K, Steinmetz R (1995) Resource management in networked multimedia systems. IEEE Comput 28(5):52-63
55. Neisser U (1976) Cognition and reality, principles and implications of cognitive psychology. Freeman, San Francisco
56. Oatley K, Jenkins JM (2003) Understanding emotions. Blackwell, Oxford
57. O'Hara K, Mitchell AS, Vorbau A (2007) Consuming video on mobile devices. Proc CHI '07:857-866 (Pubitemid 47581673)
58. Oksman V, et al (2007) News in mobiles, Comparing text, audio and video. VTT 2007. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2007/T2375.pdf
59. Oksman V et al (2008) 'Podracing': experimenting with mobile TV content consumption and delivery methods. Multimed Syst 14(2):105-114
60. Oulasvirta A (2009) Field experiments in HCI: promises and challenges. In: Saariluoma P, Isomaki H (eds) Future Interaction Design II, Springer
61. Oulasvirta A, Nyyssönen T (2009) Flexible hardware configurations for studying mobile usability. J Usability Stud 4(2):93-105
62. Oulasvirta A, et al. (2005) Interaction in 4-second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factors Computing Syst CHI '05:919-928 (Pubitemid 41809127)
63. Pirhonen A, Brewster SA, Holguin C (2002) Gestural and audio metaphors as a means of control for mobile devices. Proc CHI'2002:291-298
64. Reiter U, Jumisko-Pyykkö S (2007) Watch, press and catch-impact of divided attention on requirements of audiovisual quality. Proc 12th HCI Int 2007:943-952
65. Roto V (2006) Web browsing on mobile phones-characteristics of user experience. Dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology
66. Sasse MA, Knoche H (2006) Quality in context-an ecological approach to assessing QoS for mobile TV. Proc ISCA/DEGA Tutor & Res Workshop Percept Quality of Systems 2006
67. Schwarz H, Marpe D, Wiegand T (2007) Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Tech 17(9):1103-1120 (Pubitemid 47483052)
68. Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
69. Södergård C (ed) (2003) Mobile television-technology and user experiences. Report on the Mobile TV Project. Espoo: VTT Publications 506.
70. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
71. Strohmeier D, Tech G (2010) Sharp, bright, three-dimensional: open profiling of quality for mobile 3DTV coding methods. Proc SPIE Multimedia on Mobile Devices 2010
72. Strohmeier D, Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Kunze K (2010) New, lively, and exciting or just artificial, straining, and distracting-a sensory profiling approach to understand mobile 3D audiovisual quality. Proc VPQM 2010
73. Tamminen S et al (2004) Understanding mobile contexts. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8(2):135-143
74. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (2008) Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: calling for an intergrative framework. In: Bergman MM (ed) Advances in Mixed Method Research. Age Publications
75. Winkler S, Faller C (2005) Audiovisual quality evaluation of low-bitrate video. Proc SPIE IS&T Hum Vis Electron Imaging 5666:139-148 (Pubitemid 40949009)