Notification Mechanisms in Second-Screen Scenarios: Towards a Balanced User Experience

INTETAIN | 11.06.2015 -

Jorge Abreu | [email protected] -

University of Aveiro, Portugal | CIC.DIGITAL: DIGIMEDIA: SOCIAL iTV -

Towards a Balanced User Experience

Notification Mechanisms in Second-Screen Scenarios

RESEARCH!ON SOCIAL ITV!

JORGE ABREU PEDRO ALMEIDA

TELMO SILVA RITA OLIVEIRA

MÓNICA ARESTA

LÍGIA DURO

socialitv.web.ua.pt !

40% NORTH AMERICANS USE SECOND-‐SCREEN DEVICES WHILE WATCHING TV

20% UK CONSUMERS ENGAGE IN SECOND-‐SCREEN ACTIVITIES WHILE WATCHING TV

CONSUMER HABITS PERFORM GENERIC WEB SEARCHES

LOOK UP FOR RELATED INFO RECEIVE ENHANCED SYNCHRONIZED

INFORMATION

SOURCE: TECHNOLOGIA REPORT, 2014; THE NIELSEN COMPANY, 2014

CONSUMER HABITS

study made by the SocialiTV research group

SOURCE: hQp://socialitv.web.ua.pt/index.php/contents/images/

WHAT ABOUT THE CONSUMER?

ATTENTION VULNERABILITY EXCESS OF DISTURBANCES EXCESS OF INTERRUPTIONS

NOTIFICATIONS DIRECT THE USERS’ ATTENTION

VALUED BY USERS CONSIDERED AS A SOURCE OF INTERRUPTION

(Iqbal & Horvitz, 2010)

the study

OUR AIMS

#1 WHAT TYPE OF NOTIFICATION IS MORE EFFICIENTE IN BALANCING AWARENESS, ENGAGEMENT AND EFFORT

#2 WHAT IS THE INTERFERENCE OF NOTIFICATIONS’ CADENCE IN THE TV CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCE

hQps://w

ww.flickr.com

/pho

tos/jobo

pa/598

3055

658/

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROTOTYPE

“IDENTIFICATION” OF TV CONTENT

PRESENTATION OF RELATED SYNCHRONIZED INFORMATION

NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

LABORATORY SETTINGS

“LIVING ROOM” SOFAS PUFFS

40-‐inch FULL HD TV NEXUS 9 (8.9 inch, 4:3 ASPECT RATIO, 1536x 2048p)

TEST SETTINGS

PARTICIPANTS RANDOMLY SELECTED (CONVENIENCE SAMPLING)

15 MINUTES FILM (DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS)

NOTIFICATIONS WHEN NEW CONTENT WAS DISPLAYED

TEST DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS

APPLICATION IDENTIFIES CONTENT ON TV

DETECTS ADDITIONAL INFO

TRIGGERS NOTIFICATIONS

PRESENTS ADDITIONAL INFO

NOTIFICATIONS VISUAL (ON TV) VISUAL (ON TABLET) AUDIO HAPTIC


VISUAL NOTIFICATIONS ON THE TV

VISUAL NOTIFICATIONS ON THE TABLET


TEST #1 10-‐MINUTES FILM

VISUAL, AUDIO AND HAPTIC NOTIFICATIONS

INDEPENDENTLY OR COMBINED

PRESS “RECEIVED NOTIFICATION” BUTTON (RESPONSE TIMESTAMPS RECORDED BY THE APP)

“WHAT TYPE OF NOTIFICATION IS MORE EFFICIENTE IN BALANCING AWARENESS, ENGAGEMENT AND EFFORT?”

+ QUESTIONNAIRE


TEST #2 5-‐MINUTES FILM

VISUAL, AUDIO AND HAPTIC NOTIFICATIONS

COMBINED, ONLY ON THE TABLET

“WHAT IS THE INTERFERENCE, IF ANY, OF NOTIFICATIONS’ CADENCE IN THE TV CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCE?”

3 CADENCES: EVERY 1-‐MINUTE EVERY 10-‐SECONDS EVERY 30-‐SECONDS

+ QUESTIONNAIRE

DATA COLLECTED FROM •  PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSE TIME

TO NOTIFICATIONS (TEST 1)

•  RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRES (TEST 1 & 2)

•  STRUCTURED INTERVIEW (AT THE

END OF THE TEST SESSION)

PARTICIPANTS’ REACTION TO NOTIFICATIONS #1 “WHAT TYPE OF NOTIFICATION IS MORE EFFICIENTE IN BALANCING AWARENESS, ENGAGEMENT AND EFFORT?”

#2 “WHAT IS THE INTERFERENCE OF NOTIFICATIONS’ CADENCE IN THE TV CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCE?”

DATA GATHERING

the results

PARTICIPANTS’ TV AND SECOND-‐SCREEN HABITS

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

12 PARTICIPANTSUNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS + VISITANTS8 MALE, 4 FEMALEAGED BETWEEN 18 AND 35 YEARS OLD4 GRADUATION STUDENTS8 WITH (OR ATTENDING) MASTER DEGREE COURSES

10 WATCH TV MAINLY WITH FAMILY8 WATCH TV ALONE6 WATCH TV WITH FRIENDS

4 USE SECOND SCREEN DEVICES WHILE WATCHING TV WITH FAMILY TO CHECK E-MAIL OR SOCIAL NETWORKS TO SEARCH FOR RELATED INFORMATION

•  PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSE TIME TO NOTIFICATIONS •  WHEN EXPOSED TO THE COMBINATIONS OF VISUAL NOTIFICATIONS ON TV + AUDIO/HAPTIC

NOTIFICATIONS ON THE TABLET PARTICIPANTS HAD A FASTER RESPONSE TIME TO STIMULUS

RESULTS #1

V VH

TVH

TVV

TVVA

HTVH

AH

TVA

TVAH

TVAH

TVVH

VA

A TVA

TVVA

A H AH

VA

VH

V TVV

TVVH

1

0123456789

101112

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

part

icip

ants

Participants’ response time: < 3 seconds 4 to 5 seconds > 6 seconds

Notifications: TV (visual on TV); V (visual); A (audio); H (haptic)

•  PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSE TIME TO NOTIFICATIONS •  WHEN EXPOSED TO THE COMBINATIONS OF VISUAL NOTIFICATIONS ON TV + AUDIO/HAPTIC

NOTIFICATIONS ON THE TABLET PARTICIPANTS HAD A FASTER RESPONSE TIME TO STIMULUS

RESULTS #1

V VH

TVH

TVV

TVVA

HTVH

AH

TVA

TVAH

TVAH

TVVH

VA

A TVA

TVVA

A H AH

VA

VH

V TVV

TVVH

1

0123456789

101112

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

part

icip

ants

Participants’ response time: < 3 seconds 4 to 5 seconds > 6 seconds

Notifications: TV (visual on TV); V (visual); A (audio); H (haptic)

•  RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRES •  RECEIVING NOTIFICATIONS DID NOT NECESSARILY PROVOQUE A NEGATIVE REACTION (ONLY 3

PARTICIPANTS MENTIONED TO BE ANNOYED BY NOTIFICATIONS) •  NOTIFICATIONS WERE USEFUL IN ALERTING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF NEW INFO ON THE TABLET (12 PART.) •  NOTIFICATIONS WERE SOMEHOW DISTURBING OF THE TV VIEWING EXP. (MENTIONED BY 8 OF 12 PART.) •  RECEIVING AUDIO NOTIFICATIONS CONTRIBUTED FOR LOSS OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE FILM

•  PARTICIPANTS’ OPINION REGARDING NOTIFICATIONS’ CADENCE

•  RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRES •  IT WAS EASIER TO READ THE INFORMATION IN THE 30-‐SECONDS AND 1-‐MINUTE CADENCES •  IT WAS EASIER TO MANAGE ATTENTION BETWEEN THE TWO DEVICES IN THE 30-‐SEC. / 1-‐MINUTE CADENCE

|0 |2 |4 |6 |8 |10 |12

I was able to read the informa!on on the tablet when no!fica!ons were triggered every:10-sec.30-sec.

1 minute

10-sec.30-sec.

1 minute

I was able to manage a"en!on between TV and tablet when no!fica!ons were triggered every:

totally agree agree totally disagreedisagree indifferent

RESULTS #2

•  WHEN TRIGGERED AT CLOSE INTERVALS •  NOTIFICATIONS BECAME MORE TIRING| LOST OF ENGAGEMENT WITH TV CONTENT WAS INCREASED •  IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW CONTENT ON THE TV

|0 |2 |4 |6 |8 |10 |12

totally agree agree totally disagreedisagree indifferent

10-sec.30-sec.

1 minute

10-sec.30-sec.

1 minute

10-sec.30-sec.

1 minute

It was difficult to follow content on the TV when no#fica#ons were triggered every:

No#fica#ons became #ring when triggered every:

I lost engagement with the film playing on TV when no#fica#ons were triggered every:

RESULTS #2

•  AUDIO NOTIFICATIONS INTERFERED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF WATCHING TV

•  VISUAL NOTIFICATIONS ON THE TV WERE THE LESS INTRUSIVE ONES

•  HAPTIC NOTIFICATIONS WERE USEFUL TO ALERT FOR NEW CONTENT AND

DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE TV VIEWING EXPERIENCE

RESULTS

DATA COLLECTED FROM STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS (AT THE END OF TESTS)

NOTIFICATIONS – LOOKING FOR A BALANCED USER EXPERIENCE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

ENGAGEMENT

DISTRACTIONAWARE

NESSTHE COMBINATION OF

VISUAL NOTIFICATIONS ON THE TV AND AUDIO

NOTIFICATIONS IS THE MOST PERCEIVED

AUDIO NOTIFICATIONS INTERFERED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF WATCHING TV AND CONTRIBUTED FOR LOSS OF ENGAGEMENT

HAPTIC NOTIFICATIONS ALERT FOR NEW CONTENT AND INTERFERE LESS WITH THE

TV VIEWING EXPERIENCE

MORE SPACED STIMULUS INCREASED THE USERS’ HABILITY TO READ CONTENT AND MANAGE ATTENTION

NOTIFICATIONS – LOOKING FOR A BALANCED USER EXPERIENCE

DSICUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

IT IS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE A BALANCED TRADEOFF BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT DISTRACTION AWARENESS

COMBINATION OF VISUAL NOTIFICATIONS (ON THE TV) AND HAPTIC NOTIFICATIONS 30-‐SECONDS OR MORE INTERVAL

MOST SUITABLE STRATEGY FOR INTEGRATING NOTIFICATIONS IN A SECOND-‐SCREEN SCENARIO

thank you! Q&A

Notification Mechanisms in Second-Screen Scenarios: Towards a Balanced User Experience

Mobile

Transcript of Notification Mechanisms in Second-Screen Scenarios: Towards a Balanced User Experience