Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactive TV user interfaces: how fast is too fast?

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The analysis presented in this paper is the search for optimal scrolling speeds of the user interface for interactive TV (iTV) navigation. The most popular navigation techniques for browsing through user interfaces usually incorporate scrolling. Furthermore, the latest set-top-boxes have enough processing power to support very fast scrolling, not only for texts, but also for photographs and other elements. We designed and performed an experiment to measure the optimal scrolling speed for different activities on a user interface. We found that the optimal speed depends on the type and complexity of the navigational elements (like text or graphics). We discovered that less-complex elements, such as numbered TV-channel names, tolerate much higher scrolling speeds than more-complex elements, such as graphical elements like movie posters. We also analyzed the impact of the direction of navigation (vertical, horizontal) on the optimal speeds and the results show no major impact on the graphical elements, while for the text elements the difference is obvious. The results of this study can improve the usability of the horizontal and vertical navigation techniques in modern iTV navigation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aladwani A, Palvia P (2002) Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Inf Manag 39:467–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blohm G, Schreiber C (2002) The smooth pursuit system. http://www.auto.ucl.ac.be/EYELAB/neurophysio/perception_action/SP.html

  3. Bowers AR, Woods RL, Peli E (2004) Preferred retinal locus and reading rate with four dynamic text presentation formats. Optom Vis Sci 81(3):205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burr D (1980) Motion smear. Nature 284(5752):164–165

    Google Scholar 

  5. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction, Chapter 2. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp 23–97

  6. Eckert M, Buchsbaum G (1993) The significance of eye movements and image acceleration for coding television image sequences, In: Watson A (ed) Digital images and human vision, Chapter 8. M.I.T Press, Cambridge, MA, USA pp 90–98

  7. Eslambolchilar P, Murray-Smith R (2008) Control centric approach in designing scrolling and zooming user interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Stud 66:838–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hwang W, Salvendy G (2010) Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10±2 rule. Commun ACM 53(5):130–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Igarashi T, Hinckley K (2000) Speed-dependent Automatic zooming for browsing large documents. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on User Interface Software and Technology, San Diego, California., ACM Press, pp 139–148

  10. Innbox HD30. http://www.innbox.net/

  11. Kinchla RA, Loraine GA (1970) Visual movement perception: a comparison of sensitivity to vertical and horizontal movement. Attention Perception & Psychophysics 8(6):399–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin J, Lu H (2000) Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a web site. Int J Inf Manag 20:197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgan MJ, Benton S (1989) Motiondeblurring in human vision. Nature 340:385–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Nielsen J (2000) Why you only need to test with 5 users. Alertbox: current issues in web usability. Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html

  16. Obrist M, Moser C, Tscheligi M, Alliez D (2010) Field evaluation of a cross platform 6 key navigation model and a unified user interface design. EuroITV’10 Proceedings of the 8th international interactive conference on Interactive TV&Video

  17. Pogačnik M, Tasič, Jurij F, Meža M, Košir A (2005) Personal content recommender based on a hierarchical user model for the selection of TV programmes. User Model User-Adap Inter 15(5):425–457, Ilustr

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pogačnik M, Tasič JF, Košir A (2004) Optimization of multi-attribute user modeling approach. AEU Int J Electron Commun 58(6):402–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sedlar U, Zebec L, Bešter J, Kos A (2008) Bringing click-to-dial functionality to IPTV users. IEEE Commun Mag 46(3):118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shin DH (2009) An empirical investigation of a modified technology acceptance model of IPTV. Behav Inform Technol 28(4):361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Skorin-Kapov L, Mosmondor M, Dobrijević O, Matijašević M (2007) Application-level QoS negotiation and signaling for advanced multimedia services in the IMS. IEEE Commun Mag 45(7):108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sterle J, Volk M, Sedlar U, Bešter J, Kos A (2011) Application-based NGN QoE controller. IEEE Commun Mag 49(1):92–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Volk M, Guna J, Kos A, Bešter J (2008) Quality-assured provisioning of IPTV services within the NGN environment. IEEE Commun Mag 46(5):118–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wallace A, Savage J, Cockburn A (2004) Rapid visual flow: how fast is too fast? Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC2004), Australian Computer Society Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, New Zealand, pp 117–122

  25. Wikipedia. Optimum HDTV viewing distance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

  26. Wikipedia. User experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience

  27. Yin S (2009) The effects of different design factors on comprehension performance and subjective evaluation for reading Chinese on led display. Retrieved from http://lbms03.cityu.edu.hk/theses/abt/mphil-meem-b39478981a.pdf. City University of Hong Kong, Run Run Shaw Library, Master thesis

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Gregor Fuis and Sergej Eržen for their help with the testing-environment preparation and all the participants who took part in the evaluation study. The research work was partly performed in the scope of research program P2-0246—Algorithms and optimization procedures in telecommunications, financed by the Slovenian Research Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Iskratel d.o.o., Ljubljanska c. 24a, SI-4000, Kranj, Slovenia

    Mitja Golja

  2. Iskratel d.o.o., Tržaška cesta 37a, SI-2000, Maribor, Slovenia

    Emilija Stojmenova

  3. Laboratory for Telecommunications, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University in Ljubljana, Tržaška 25, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Iztok Humar

Authors
  1. Mitja Golja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emilija Stojmenova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iztok Humar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitja Golja.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Golja, M., Stojmenova, E. & Humar, I. Interactive TV user interfaces: how fast is too fast?. Multimed Tools Appl 71, 61–76 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1365-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1365-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation