Advertisement

The Influence of Network Quality of Service Factors on the Usability and Effectiveness of Multimedia Internet Broadcasting

  • Andy McKinlay
  • Rob Procter
  • Scott Gallacher
Part of the Computer Communications and Networks book series (CCN)

Abstract

We report here the results of two experimental studies in which we evaluated the usability of multimedia internet broadcasting in a training application and investigated the effects of network quality of service (QoS) on subjects’ capacity to assimilate the factual and emotional content.1

Keywords

Background Traffic Affective Information Vicarious Learning Multimedia Material Subject Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apteker, R., Fisher, J., Kisimov, V. and Neishlos, H. (1995) “Video Acceptability and Frame Rate”, IEEE Multimedia, 2(3), 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brebner, G. (1997) Computers in Communication. McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, R. (1986) Social Psychology: The Second Edition. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karlsson, G. (1995) “Asynchronous Transfer of Video”, Swedish Institute for Computer Science Research Report No. R95–14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kellog, R. (1995) Cognitive Psychology. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J. and Cox, R. (1998) “Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(2), 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Monk, A. and Watts, L. A (1995) “Quality Video Link Affects Speech But Not Gaze”, in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (Denver CO, May), ACM Press, 274–75.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olson, J., Olson, G. and Meacher, D. (1995) “What Mix of Video and Audio is Useful for Small Groups Doing Remote Real-time Design Work?” in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (Denver CO, May), ACM Press, 362–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Procter, A. McKinlay and S. Gallacher (1999) “An Investigation of the Influence of Variable Network Load on the Effectiveness of Multimedia Presentations”. In Simone, C. and Weisband, S. (Eds.) Proceedings of Group’99, the International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Phoenix Arizona, November), ACM Press, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Procter, R., Williams, R., and Cashin, L. (1996) “Social Learning and Innovations in Multimedia-based CSCW”, ACM SIGOIS Bulletin, December. ACM Press, 73–76.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogers, T. (1999) “Transforming perspectives with interactive drama”.http://www.caiiastar.soc.plym.ac.uk/starproductions/tomwww/index.html Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sloane, A. (1996) Multimedia Communication. McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whittaker, S. (1995) “Rethinking video as a technology for interpersonal communications: theory and design implications”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42, 501–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andy McKinlay
  • Rob Procter
  • Scott Gallacher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations