Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Entertainment Computing
journal homepage: ees.elsevier.com/entcom

A survey on user studies and technical aspects of mobile multimedia applications

Shelley Buchinger ⇑, Simone Kriglstein, Sabine Brandt, Helmut Hlavacs
University of Vienna, Faculty of Computer Science, Entertainment Computing Research Group, Lenaugasse 2/8, 1080 Vienna, Austria
Workflow Systems and Technology Research Group, Rathausstraße 19/9, 1010 Wien, Austria
University of Veterinary Medicine, Equine Biotechnology Unit, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Some years ago, Mobile TV has been introduced in several countries all over the world. It was expected
Available online 26 February 2011 that it would play a major role among traditional TV services. Unfortunately, the success has been limited
at the beginning. Since Mobile TV brings new aspects into television, like small screens, consumption in
Keywords: noisy surroundings, etc., it also represents a new challenge on how to create, transfer and present content
Mobile TV that maximizes the consumer experience. Today, some of these issues have been solved. Due to the intro-
QoE duction of smart phones and the large amount of available applications customers are starting to use
Human Centered Design
their mobile phones for several purposes including mobile multimedia services. As a consequence, the
Survey
concept for Mobile TV has changed significantly.
In the past, research has often been focusing on one particular aspect of this new TV scheme, as well as
surveys on this research often neglected aspects that still might be of interest when trying to understand
the dependencies of Mobile TV content and presentation to perceived quality. In this survey paper we
want to discuss challenges and requirements in a comprehensive way, trying to shed light on all relevant
aspects of Mobile TV. The aim of this paper is to give a good overview about the state of the art with the
focus of users’ need and experiences. A large collection of technical aspects and research results repre-
sents a special interest of this study. Finally, we want to discuss a framework for mobile multimedia
applications which is relevant for further research work.
Ó 2011 International Federation for Information Processing Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of available applications on the market has considerably increased.

Mobile TV and digital video content services represent an
important business of the future. According to forecasts user
demand will grow significantly by 2011 [72]. The realization of
Mobile TV leads to an important change of television that we know
today. Wippersberg compares the current situation to the early fif-
ties of the twentieth century, when television started to enter our
homes [101]. At this time, similar to now, the screen size was dra-
matically reduced leading to a completely new scenario with new
problems and challenges. Due to different consumption scenarios
and time schedules, a new concept for the content production
and consumption had to be made for television. Wippersberg
states that this needs to happen again for Mobile TV.
In the first period, mostly early adopters used Mobile TV. They
were limited to the available services offered at the market, e.g.,
broadcasting and video on demand. Due to technical as well as
conceptual reasons that will be discussed later in this paper the
initial success remained below most expectations. However, since
then the concept of Mobile TV has changed. Currently, the number
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1427739653.
E-mail address: shelley.buchinger@univie.ac.at (S. Buchinger).
This has mainly occurred for two reasons: (1) more sophisticated
devices such as smart phones are available on the market (2) users
have the possibility to contribute their applications to the commu-
nity for example via App Store or Market. The consumers get more
in more accustomed to use their mobile phones for a larger variety
of purposes including mobile multimedia services.
Furthermore, the use of multimedia data in general becomes
more and more popular, e.g., in social platforms or video responses
in discussion forums instead of text messages. In [15] the ongoing
evolution of Mobile TV is described in more detail from the social
point of view. As possible perspective for the future Chorianopou-
los states that ‘‘the introduction of content-enriched communica-
tion services is a worthwhile direction’’. The open development
platforms play an important role for the progress experienced in
this area.
In order to understand the needs and success parameters of mo-
bile multimedia services, a large amount of user studies and exper-
iments have been performed. Many user studies [72,37,14,6,
74,33,73] show that one of the main critical aspects for the success
of Mobile TV is content. Special made-for-mobile content results in
much higher user satisfaction when compared to adopted standard
TV content.

1875-9521/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 International Federation for Information Processing Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2011.02.001
176 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
However, because of the involved costs, made-for-mobile pro-
grammes are still the exception, and generally available content
is recoded for the smaller screens of mobile devices. This repre-
sents one of the reasons why Mobile TV is still in its infancy and
the number of users is very limited. Evaluations showing a consid-
erable number of consumers, like one million in Italy [17], have to
be considered with care. This is due to the fact that usually persons
having flat fee agreements which include Mobile TV are counted as
Mobile TV consumers, even if they are not actually using Mobile TV
at all.
A number of surveys has been published that offer overviews
for research and development of Mobile TV. The surveys present
research results from different studies. Yet they show that research
on similar questions has yielded completely different results in the
past. For example user studies carried out in Germany [6,74],
Austria [73], or in South Japan [64] show that Mobile TV will be
mainly viewed during short waiting times, while in similar studies
carried out in the United Kingdom and South Korea [14] or Belgium
[95], the main application area is at home. The reason for this
divergence can be understood when reading user comments re-
corded during the experiments. Culture, mentality and age have
a high impact on this research issue and lead to different outcomes,
e.g., in the United Kingdom and in Belgium people do not want to
disturb other people in public transports or on the street, and do
not want to compromise their privacy.
In this paper a comprehensive overview of this earlier work is
given, by putting a major focus on the user’s point of view, thus
combining the Quality of Experience (QoE) approach with the tra-
ditional Human Centered Design approach. Furthermore, parame-
ters depending on cultural aspects and on different user profiles
are highlighted. Hereby, previous surveys are updated, e.g., a study
on Mobile TV for 3D movies [46], but also technical aspects are
included. As a consequence of this state of the art analysis open
issues for Mobile TV are deduced and verbalised. Furthermore,
the most recent developments of mobile multimedia are analyzed
and an existing QoE framework adapted to the current mobile mul-
timedia process is presented.
2. Methodology, framework and structure
In this section, the applied methodology is described and dis-
cussed. Since we aim at putting the user in the center of our inves-
tigation, we provide some related work on Human Centered Design
and Quality of experience. Furthermore, we intend to visualize the
results of this investigation by presenting a framework for QoE of
Mobile Multimedia. Therefore, existing work on QoE frameworks
will be presented. Finally, before starting to describe the results
of previous mobile multimedia studies, we motivate, describe
and justify the structure selected for this survey.
2.1. Methodology
2.1.1. Human Centered Design
Several research papers focus on results elucidating the users’
needs and motivations in regard to interactive television as well
as Mobile TV, since commercial success of a TV product depends
on the users’ requirements and its viability [77,59].
Eronen [21] points out that a good usability is an essential as-
pect of television. This is due to the fact that Mobile TV is mainly
consumed in leisure time, and users do not want to spend much
time to find out how to use it. Furthermore, Eronen also states that
for new devices and applications, the focus of Human Computer
Interaction (HCI) research, which usually concentrates on usability,
has to shift more to user experiences, which are relevant for the
use of the product according to user needs [22]. Human Centered
Design (HCD), also known as User Centered Design (UCD) involves
users in the design and development process for a better
understanding of their needs, tasks and expectations [91,35,22].
The aspects of Human Centered Design correlate with the
understanding of User Experience (UX), which Hassenzahl and
Tractinsky [39] describe as a ‘‘consequence of a user’s internal state
(predispositions, expectations, needs, motivation, mood, etc.), the
characteristics of the designed system (e.g., complexity, purpose,
usability, functionality, etc.)’’. Especially for mobile phones the user
interface and its usability often depends on the usage model and its
layout [46] ‘‘and the context (or the environment) within the interac-
tion occurs’’. Based on these factors, design solutions by prototyp-
ing can be developed, which are evaluated by their usability and
by how they suit user needs in the next step of the Human
Centered Design process.
Currently, users generally watch television in private environ-
ments, while mobile phones are often used in public areas. There
are many interesting studies about interactive television per-
formed in a home environment, yielding results that may have a
high influence on mobile television as well. Therefore publications
on interactive television that might have an impact on Mobile TV are
equally considered in this work. These additional insights can be
particularly helpful for further design solutions. Finally approaches
and applications that are estimated to be promising.
2.1.2. Quality of experience (QoE)
An overall picture from the user’s point of view is given by
Quality of Experience (QoE). In this context, quality considers the
entire user experience and is measured by collecting and analyzing
subjective judgements. Standardization attempts to define this
term are still at an early stage. The ITU-T Study group 12 formu-
lated the Question 1/12 of the study period Study Period 2009–
2012 ‘‘QoS/QoE coordination and bridging the standardization
gap’’ and approved in December 2008 the pre-published ITU-T Rec-
ommendation G.1080 [92] defining user requirements for Quality
of Experience for IPTV services. The recommendation contains
the following definition:
‘‘Quality of experience (QoE) is as the overall acceptability of an
application or service, as perceived subjectively by the end user.
NOTE 1: Quality of Experience includes the complete end-
to-end system effects (client, terminal, network, services infra-
structure, etc.).
NOTE 2: Overall acceptability may be influenced by user expec-
tations and context.’’
Previous definitions have been summarized in [86] leading to a
more technical approach:
‘‘The users’ perceived experience of what is being presented by
the application layer, where the application layer acts as a user
interface front-end that presents the overall result of the individual
Quality of Services.’’
This definition has been expressed in 2003 and it does not
match the current point of view implying more factors, e.g., envi-
ronmental influences or device properties. Based on the Human
Centered Design approach, it is necessary to find answers to the
following questions: Where and when will Mobile TV be con-
sumed? What kind of service and content should be made? How
should it look like and how will it be consumed? Initial attempts
to answer these questions are available [72,37,54], but results still
need to be refined.
2.2. QoE framework
A certain amount of research in the area of quality of experience
has already been done. Most members of the research community
agree that an interdisciplinary approach needs to be followed.
However, except for the definitions of QoE presented above no pro-
 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
cedure for assessing QoE has been standardized yet. In this section,
a selection of proposed QoE frameworks will be presented. The aim
is to elucidate several perspectives ranging from frameworks
providing a high level description, followed by some more detailed
approaches down to QoS related QoE concepts.
Moeller et al. [65] propose a taxonomy of QoS and QoE aspects
that consists of three layers: (1) QoS-influencing factors (2) QoS
interaction performance and (3) QoE aspects. The QoE aspects are
specified to be of hedonic or pragmatic nature according to the def-
initions of Hassenzahl [38]. In this way, the entire picture compris-
ing user as well as technical aspects are taken into account. An
extension of this work has been published by Geerts et al. in
[31]. Their aim is to build a framework that is linked with appropri-
ate QoE measurement methods. In this scheme, according to the
QoE definition, different layers of context and user expectations
are taken into account. Furthermore, changes in use over time
are integrated in this model. This aspect seems to be very useful
for describing the current developments in mobile multimedia. A
more detailed view on the QoE in combination with a concrete
procedure for measurements is provided in [18] and [49]. In both
cases agents are used for measuring single quality aspects and
overall results are additionally based on users’ feedback. Fiedler
et al. provide a theoretical view on the subject in [27] where
mathematical mapping functions between QoE and QoS are
proposed.
A specific framework focusing on the relation between QoE and
QoS parameters in distributed interactive multimedia environ-
ments has been published in [102]. Even if the context and the evo-
lution over time is not expressed as explicit as in [31] the approach
presented in [102] seems to fit best for our purposes because of the
following reasons: As it can be observed in Fig. 1 the influences on
(1) performance gains, (2) exploratory behaviors and (3) technol-
ogy adoption are pointed out. Since mobile multimedia is a new
area especially (2) and (3) seem to be essential for our case.
The mentioned QoE terms as they have been defined in [102]
are explained below.
Flow (psychology): defines the mental state in which a person
has the feeling of full involvement and success in the process of
the activity under the assumption that the request is high enough
to require the full concentration of the person.
Telepresence: allows users to have the feeling as if they are pres-
ent (e.g., conversation with mobile phone) or even visually present
(e.g., video call or video conferencing).
Acceptance: defined as ’’the degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would be free of effort’’ [102]. It depends on
the factors perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (e.g., if the
Fig. 1. Quality framework in DIME [102].
177
navigation for Mobile TV is easy to use and includes useful
features).
These three main dimensions of cognitive perceptions influence
the following three behavioral consequences [102]:
Exploratory behaviors: describes if users explore spontaneously
the mobile multimedia applications with no plans or goals (e.g.,
try a new feature, which was developed for recording mobile
videos).
Performance gains: the goal of this dimension is to increase
user’s performance for solving tasks. Performance gains depend
on the application environments and on the task requirements.
Technology adoption: describes the adoption or acceptance of a
new mobile multimedia application or feature (e.g., to navigate
the Mobile TV channels with the use of speech and the acceptance
of this feature by users).
In [102] the relation between QoS and QoE characteristics can
be studied. The framework of this survey describing the past and
current evolution of mobile multimedia will be built on top of
the DIME framework where the focus is put on the QoE elements
only.
2.3. Structure
Since we decided to undertake our analysis according to QoE
criteria, we had to identify QoE key factors for mobile multimedia.
Then, we sorted the collected information in respect to the defined
criteria yielding to conclusions for each single aspect.
QoE key factors for Mobile TV have been identified by
[54,14,60]. Although all key factors are equally important, users
and their motivations to use Mobile TV play an essential role and
influence other key factors. Therefore, these factors are related to
the Human Centered Design approach to consider users’ needs
and the resulting key factors represent personal views on this sub-
ject. An overview is provided in Fig. 2 where the user is positioned
in the center of the key factors described below:
User: the profile of typical users, including user motivation, fu-
ture trends and needs.
Mobile device: limits and novel features of Mobile TV offered by
mobile devices, features that are still missing.
Context: the aim is to find where, when and how long Mobile TV
is consumed.
Mobile services and features: the focus is to analyze which ser-
vices at what level of interactivity promise to be successful in the
future.
Content: content types as requested by users, user generated
content.
178 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
Fig. 2. QoE key factors for Mobile TV.
Costs and commercials: how to finance Mobile TV, fee types and
amounts users are willing to pay, the role of commercials and how
they need to be introduced.
Technical performance: which technical parameters concerning
audio, video and transmission need to be considered to improve
the quality?
Finally, results will be taken together in a framework providing
a general view of the topic as depicted in Fig. 3. The key factors rep-
resent the relevant elements leading to the mentioned behavioral
consequences that are required for the success of mobile
multimedia.
The offered content, the context of the mobile multimedia
applications and the cost model have an important impact on the
behavioral consequences. For example, if a user wants to watch
Fig. 3. First approach of our framework for mobile multimedia applications.
the news with his/her mobile phone, it is necessary that the de-
sired content is available and that the context in which s/he wants
to watch the news is considered (e.g., environmental noise, in the
morning, daylight). Furthermore, her/his acceptance to watch the
news can depend on the cost model (e.g., a monthly flat rate or
’’pay per view’’).
However, the behavioral consequences are also influenced by
(a) the design of the mobile devices (e.g., touch screen versus
buttons), (b) mobile services and features which are developed
for mobile multimedia applications and (c) technical perfor-
mances. For example, if users do not watch Mobile TV, because
the screen size of the mobile phone is too small, a possible solution
would be to design new mobile phones which maximize their
display (e.g., iPhone or HTC).
In addition, the content, the context and the cost model influ-
ence the development of mobile devices and services as well as
the technical performances and vice versa. For example, a new
interface design, which integrates the possibility to navigate a mo-
bile multimedia application with gestures, can open new ways in
which people will use it.
The following sections of this paper describe each key factor in
detail and aim to determine the parameters which depend on cul-
tural aspects, and those which yield constant result in different
types of context. Furthermore, minimal technical pre-requisites
for a successful mobile multimedia service are highlighted and pre-
sented in more detail than in recent work, in order to draw atten-
tion to yet unresolved issues in this field.
3. User
The most critical factor for the success of a mobile multimedia
service is the user. He decides if and how Mobile TV will exist in
the future. Therefore, first efforts are dedicated to the analysis of
user needs and expectations. For that purpose typical user profiles
in the current situation are discussed. In this section, we present
several studies describing user profiles and motivation. Some stud-
ies address interactive television viewers, but also yields valuable
background information on potential Mobile TV users that should
be taken into consideration in Mobile TV design. Similar to interac-
tive TV [21], viewers are changing their passive television viewing
towards an active consumer behavior.
 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
3.1. User profiles
User profiles describe typical users and yield information about
the users’ age, culture, leisure time activities, work and their rela-
tionship to modern technology. Eronen [21] defines three main
user profiles for interactive television, based on their home, work
and technology orientation: Pioneers, High-Fliers and Comfort-
Lovers. Eronen combined the results of a questionnaire study,
which aimed at finding out more about the scope of the new media
in Finland, with those of the following focus group study: The user
profiles represented mainly younger users. The median age of Pio-
neers was 21 and they wanted to have the newest and fanciest
electronic entertainment possible. High-Fliers had a median age
of 29 years and they were strongly technology-oriented. They
wanted to read personal content (e.g., emails) on their own screen.
The median age of the Comfort-Lovers is 36. They were not so flex-
ible with media usage and they preferred to use services which
were easy to handle. Furthermore, persons were generally open
for new technologies. Yet, they preferred to wait until they would
know more about their personal benefit of such new interactive
services.
Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. [46] investigated the acceptance of 3D
movies for mobile devices and pointed out that the typical Mobile
TV user is a well-educated male, aged 23–35 years. His major moti-
vation to use this service is to shorten waiting times (e.g., for a
public transport), to be up to date with the daily news while being
on the move, or to get entertained. In [105] the association Zukunft
Digital stated that Mobile TV attracts mainly young persons, aged
19–29 years, who are technologically interested ‘‘heavy-users’’.
Furthermore they found out that women would like to consume
other content than men, for commercials, no gender specific differ-
ence has been noticed. In [61] Mobile TV is considered to be attrac-
tive to one sixth of the users and is especially attractive to users
between 18 and 44 years old, in Latin America, Asia and Eastern
Europe.
Rice and Alm focused their work [80] on the requirements of
older adults (average age 71 years) to design an interactive televi-
sion interface. Older users often have difficulties in understanding
the technical language. They prefer larger buttons and voice-acti-
vated devices. The interface design should be simple and have only
limited functions.
Svon [93] analyzed how young new media-responding people
are and how they used this media in their everyday life. She
noted that mobile phones are widespread among young people
(ages 8–15) and that nearly all possess their own phone. The
Vanguard study [93] has shown that girls use mobile phones as
their preferred medium in addition to computers. Television
was a constant companion for the younger people and the study
has shown that the numbers of channels, the quality of the device
(e.g., sound and size) as well as the comfort (e.g., sofa) are essen-
tial factors. The survey also contained explicit questions about
Mobile TV, but only few responded. Reasons were that the costs
of mobile phone were too high and program offers too limited.
The small number of persons using mobile television noted that
the lines were too slow, thus humpering Mobile TV consumption.
Generally, mobile phones are additionally used to store images,
small videos or movies, music and ring tones. Furthermore, the
study showed that young people used a wide range of mobile
services.
Also most recent studies such as the [28] reveal that early
adopters are attracted by Mobile TV. The difference to previous
results concerns the age of potential users. Not only young con-
sumers aged between 18 and 29 are interested in mobile multime-
dia also 50% of users aged between 30 and 39 are attracted.
Furthermore, it seems that users’ age does not represent anymore
the most important criterion for the adoption of new mobile multi-
179
media services. Consumers can be divided by type of hardware
owners [28], e.g., Netbook, smartphone, mp3, laptop or cell phone
owners or by consumer type as it has been recently published in
[87]. There, consumers have been segmented into five groups:
mobirati who would use their phone for every day lives’ tasks,
the social connectors using the phone to stay connected with their
friends and social world, the mobile professionals are attracted by
the extra features and would retrieve information in several ways,
the pragmatic adopters use the cell phone mainly for calling and the
basic planners use it only in case of emergencies.
Taken together, until 2008 all studies agree that typical Mobile
TV users are young persons. Through more recent studies it can be
noticed that the picture is changing. Also up to 40 year old users
seem to be interested. Consumers’ affinity to hardware and their
motivation of use seem to become the dominant aspects.
Gender-related predictions greatly depend on service features
and proposed contents so that no significant correlation between
Mobile TV consumption and gender could be determined.
3.2. User motivation
There are many occasions inviting users to consume Mobile TV.
In [72] it is mentioned that the ability to watch television at any
time anywhere gives users a feeling of control and security. As a
global picture people want to use Mobile TV to
 kill time while waiting, i.e., for a public transport,
 kill time during extended waiting periods, i.e., waiting for
friends in bars, or in a car,
 being always up to date, i.e., with popular events or news
 create a private sphere,
 feel less lonely, i.e., lunch break at work,
 relax, i.e., at home in the bedroom or in the bath,
 be entertained,
 own, share and exchange content,
 novelty, the desire to be the first, or
 create and consume personalized content.
Based on the traditional television, Svon pointed out [93] that
the main motivations for younger people to use television in gen-
eral is to relax, watch their favorite shows/movies or use it as back-
ground medium. The study [5] also showed that viewing television
is often a background activity at home. A particular case of Mobile
TV – Mobile 3D TV – has been recently investigated [46]. It has
been noted that Mobile 3D TV is not likely to constitute a back-
ground medium (only 17.3% used it as a secondary task). On the
contrary, users expect a deeper immersion from this service and
intend to use it as main activity.
In [61] it is stated that persons who own a multimedia or
Mobile TV device will mainly use it as such. This means that just
the fact of having the opportunity to use Mobile TV represents a
motivation for its use. Several studies [14,69,60,10,77,70] show
that users mostly want to kill time during waiting periods. Users
are more motivated to use their mobile phone to watch videos dur-
ing a short time period (e.g., waiting for a bus) instead to watch it
on a laptop, because it takes more time to start it [57]. Furthermore
the possession of content is of huge interest [69]. It has been
noticed that people will use Mobile TV for relaxing [14]. These
observations lead immediately to the question as to where people
want to use Mobile TV, because relaxing and waiting occurs in
different places. This issue will be analyzed in detail in Section 5.1.
The trend of media entertainment tends to personalized con-
tent, which depends on user needs, tastes and preferences [104].
Mobile phones are considered to be very private devices. This is
shown by a study [5] where participants are reluctant to share
180 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
them with anybody else. This result is confirmed for Mobile TV
[69,14], where individual viewing is the predominant case.
In [69,14] subjects often used Mobile TV to create privacy. How-
ever, in particular young users sometimes shared their experience
devices are lent.
The possibility to personalize content represents one reason for
the growing popularity of Mobile TV. Hussain et al. [42] pointed
out that the number of traditional broadcast viewers decreases be-
cause of the increasing use of Internet or Mobile TV. Another study
[88] showed that Mobile TV is attractive because people like to use
their own personal TV at home. It can be used as a tool to get a clo-
ser interaction with television content.
4. Mobile device
The big change from traditional television to Mobile TV is the
device itself, its small size, operability and reliability. Results from
user studies in relation to mobile devices found in different coun-
tries like UK, USA, Japan, Finland, South Korea, Switzerland and
Austria are very coherent and in some cases even surprisingly sim-
ilar. Some issues that have been identified in these studies have al-
ready been addressed nowadays. For example the screens have
become slightly larger or touch screens provide the opportunity
to display simple user interfaces for multimedia players.
This might be one of the reasons why smartphones have be-
come more and more popular. In [100] it is stated that mobile
phones could easily outnumber PCs by 2013.
4.1. Screen and phone size
In many cases the first reaction of new Mobile TV users is ‘‘but
the screen is so small!’’ (see an example in Fig. 4). Whereas users
want the screen to be as large as possible, they do not want their
phones to be too big [54]. Larger image sizes and landscape-
oriented use of the display might be preferred [54,73]. On the other
hand, in particular female users do not want the weight and size of
the handset to be increased [50].
During the FIFA 2010 World Cup MobiTV Inc. has observed [48]
that users using mobile phones with larger screens revealed to
have a longer viewing time.
4.2. Battery and memory
Beside the screen size, the limited battery life has been identi-
fied as a main barrier [69,14,54,73]. High battery consumption of
Mobile TV compromises mobile phone functionality. As a conse-
quence, time-slicing for DVB-H transmissions has been developed,
resulting in power savings of up to 90% [67]. This is due to the fact
that the receiver part of the device can be put into a low-power
Fig. 4. A Mobile TV device.
sleeping mode when uninteresting transmissions transmission
slices occur. The increase of battery lifetime and the decrease of
power consumption are subjects of current research. Furthermore,
a lot of memory is required for Mobile TV application and if users
have not enough space (e.g., they stored too many photos) it would
not work, which can have a negative influence on the usage behav-
ior [47].
4.3. TV buttons
Several studies [54,90] point out that Mobile TV must be easy to
use. People are not willing to navigate through menus and there-
fore the need for special TV buttons on the phone has been ex-
pressed. In particular the sound management must be quick and
simple.
4.4. Sound control and headphones
As already mentioned above the sound control is very impor-
tant for the Mobile TV user, i.e., people do not want to miss an
announcement from the public transport and hence need to turn
down or mute the sound rapidly. Two studies provide more in-
depth results on this issue, one has been performed in Japan
[64] and the other one in Belgium [95]. Both studies, though hav-
ing been carried out in different cultures, return the same result:
the involved subjects did not want to use headphones when con-
suming mobile TV. Reasons for this behavior can vary. One expla-
nation is that headphones are seldom used when watching
traditional TV. Therefore, people simply do not associate televi-
sion with headphones and do not think about using them. An-
other reason is that some people do not want to carry more
than the mobile device with them; others may prefer to remain
in contact with their surrounding. Not all the users reject head-
phones and there are situations where users definitely prefer to
wear them. An example is given in [69] where a boy describes
a situation in which he uses the headphones to become unavail-
able for his younger sister and brother. According to Oksman
et al. [70], in Finland Mobile TV is not often used without head-
phones in public places and transport. It has to be considered that
some mobile customers are already used to wear headphones
when listening to music on the way. The specific circumstances
defining the willingness to wear headphones actually represent
an open issue that is worth to be further explored. One assump-
tion might be that the acceptance of headphones depends on the
user profile.
The implications of these studies are quite important as they
may concern a variety of issues. It seems that content, at least
for a significant user group, has to be produced in a completely dif-
ferent manner. When remembering old silent movies, Mobile TV
actors must show a new profile. In China a made-for-mobile soap
opera has been produced [34]. It contains very little dialogues
and limited gestures. An actor told the press: ‘‘Your emotions should
come only from facial expressions.’’ News transmissions today are
usually presented by a talking head, a scenography that does not
make sense when there is no sound. If research results of [64,95]
are confirmed by further studies, then the traditional talking head
for news content should be substituted by a sequence of images,
probably supported by some textual information.
But even if costumers are using their headphones the sound
perception still represents a problem. While commuting the loud-
ness and shape of environmental noise continuously changing and
is likely to occasionally mask the sound of presented content.
First, it is worth to understand the Mobile TV users’ context in
more detail.
 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
5. Context
Most user studies comprise questions related to the mobile ser-
vice. Researchers and companies need to know which service
should be used at which time, how and where. The ideas and con-
cepts for Mobile TV are the same in all studies, but user priorities
vary. The culture of the country in which the study has been per-
formed and the age of the test subjects are the predominant factors
leading to these discrepancies.
5.1. Physical context
Location of mobile TV use is a highly controversial issue. Studies
performed in the UK [14], South Korea [14] and Belgium [95] reveal
that people clearly want to watch Mobile TV at home. In other
studies performed in Germany [6,?], Austria [73], or Japan [64]
point out that Mobile TV is mainly consumed during waiting times
or on the go.
At home, people want to relax, create their private sphere for a
short time, e.g., to calm down for some minutes when arriving at
home from work before starting to play and chat with their chil-
dren. Home is the most likely location in studies performed in
the UK, USA and Belgium. In the UK and in Belgium people are
afraid to disturb the others, and also want to keep their privacy.
They do not want strangers to observe what they currently view
on their screens. In the USA people mainly use the car to go to work
or to school. Hence they do not have the opportunity to watch TV
because they drive. The passengers in the back of the car can use it,
but in this case the transport happens in a private setting similar to
home. In studies performed in countries where public transport is
used a lot, and the education to behave in a polite way is not as
strong as in the UK or Belgium, Mobile TV consumption occurs dur-
ing waiting times and in public transportation. In South Korea [14],
Mobile TV is mainly consumed at home and while commuting. In
this study, emphasis is put on the fact that this observation is
highly culture depending and hence does not reflect general trend.
Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. [46] found that the majority of respondents
use mobile TV with 3D content in lounges (e.g., airport) or public
transports. This means that future research and service providers
must investigate very carefully the cultural background of the user
they want to reach with their product. It is not enough to rely on
one well performed user study to know why and where the service
will be used in future, and even more so as business success will
depend on this choice.
5.2. Temporal context
In order to set up adequate programmes and to be prepared for
high bandwidth peaks, it is interesting to know when Mobile TV is
likely to be viewed and for how much time. Many studies have
been published on that purpose and it is very interesting to notice
that nearly all recent studies agree about usage durations and
times. It has always been stated that Mobile TV content must be
short, initially starting by approximately 10 minutes [73], and it
has been reduced from year to year, reaching now a length of 1
to 3 min for one content type [74,33], because users use Mobile
TV usually as a time-killer for short time periods [57]. Lievens
et al. [57] point out that users want to browse quickly through
the different channels and often this is the only thing that they
do during that period. The same effect happened for the total
amount of consumption per day. It is estimated to range between
5 and 40 minutes per day [72]. According to [10], results show that
users spend approximately 20 min per day, and the watching time
differs from traditional television peak hours. Reasons are that the
participants watched Mobile TV while traveling or also at work to
181
get informed about the latest news, which is also confirmed by the
study of Kaasinen et al. [47]. However, other studies do even agree
on the prime times:
 Early in the morning,
 at lunch, and
 early in the evening, before dinner.
The early evening prime time is the most popular [10]. Japanese
test persons stated that this is due to the higher number of spare
places to sit in public transports [64]. In contrast, watching Mobile
TV in the morning while standing in the bus is highly uncomfort-
able. The lunch break at work or in the courtyard of the school
reached the second place. Nearly all studies [6,73,29] agree about
these prime times. But they also agree on the fact that with respect
to traditional television consumption, these times will undergo
more variations. The study of Kaasinen et al. [47] shows that the
usage of Mobile TV does not influence the usage of other media
and that Mobile TV is often used as extension to the traditional
television. Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. [46] found that Mobile 3D TV is
suitable for time filling situations and stated that the most inter-
esting option to use it was during a long journey. Other options
were the use during waiting situations, commuting or short coffee
or lunch breaks. Furthermore, they pointed out that the optimal
length of viewing ranged from a couple of minutes to 15 min. This
is in accordance to the results obtained by Oksman et al. [70]. How-
ever, in this work no prime time could be identified for Mobile TV.
The physical context has been identified to be the predominant
factor. Another possibility consists in taking the social context into
account. Since the social connectors have been identified in [87] to
be one important user group it is indispensable to shed light on
this aspect.
5.3. Social context
The traditional TV viewing in the living room is often not an iso-
lated viewing activity, e.g., it allows viewers to guess with quiz
show participants or they record and share TV content with friends
which can introduce discussions about the content [15,84]. There-
fore, it is often not enough to only pay attention to usability issues
[15]. Chorianopoulos [15] declares that mobile devices will play an
important role for the next generation of social TV services. In con-
trast to the traditional television behavior Mobile TV is often used
in combination with other activities that users perform simulta-
neously [57]. Social activities (e.g., chatting while remote viewers
watch the news or sending cartoons to other viewers) are possible
because communication features can be integrated with television
viewing [36,84]. Sørensen et al. [89] confirm that users would like
to use their mobile phones as a shared device with others to
produce and share mobile videos with communities or groups.
Mitchell et al. [62] show that the usage of mobile videos can be di-
vided in individual and collaborative uses, which are influenced by
various social factors. For example, although individually viewing
is used only to pass time (e.g., waiting spaces), they observed that
people use mobile videos as a way of managing relationships with
others [62]. Another example is that people can use mobile video
to appear busy during their lunch break if they are alone [62]. So-
cial activities for collaborative viewing can be encouraged by the
possibility to create own videos with mobile phones. Everyday
activities can be shared with other people. Reponen et al. [78] ex-
tracted two main, social motivation factors for recording videos in
everyday communication: (1) users may be motivated to create
videos for their own purpose (e.g., for archiving their own life) or
(2) to use them as communication medium (e.g., to share one’s life
with other users). Mitchell et al. [62] note that people often show
personal content such as family videos to others (e.g., they want to
182 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190

show a short video to friends which they recorded during their findings about preferred content types are described in this sec-
holiday). Or mobile videos can be used as introduction for further tion. Of course originality will be very important and like for tradi-
discussions within groups (e.g., friends are waiting for a bus and tional television, it represents always an open issue. In this section
one of them shows a new music video which can induce a discus- is presented about what has been thought till now.
sion about it). In analogy to [72] content types have been assigned in two cat-
The usage of mobile phones in a social context encourages to egories: The professional content that is already known from tradi-
design new interfaces for better support of social activities be- tional television and user generated content.
tween users. Vatavu [96] points out that new technologies (e.g.,
sensing technology, computer vision, and artificial intelligence 7.1. Professional content
techniques) open new ways to design new interfaces for control-
ling TV sets (e.g., with the help of the use of speech, gesture, tangi- Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. [46] mention that several Mobile TV stud-
ble objects). Consequently, mobile user’s behavior and their usage ies found out that the most interesting genres are news, music,
of mobile multimedia applications are influenced. Mitchell et al. sport, and live broadcasts. This is confirmed by many other inves-
[62] also state that the design of mobile devices needs further tigations [29,73,6,74]. However, it is also mentioned that the selec-
improvements, e.g., docking solutions with speakers/large- tion of channels on Mobile TV would be often too limited [47]. In
displays, integrated technologies to enable content exchange the study of [10] 131 phone users were interviewed about the con-
between mobile devices and also to allow more storage capacity. tent they consumed. (see Fig. 5). Interestingly, results revealed a
relationship between users’ age and the content type they pre-
ferred. Again news were a top content appreciated by nearly all
6. Mobile services and features
ages. This predilection was even more pronounced for users older
than 25 years. For younger people, sports and Music TV were of
On one hand, traditional broadcast programs can be accompa-
main interest.
nied by supplementary features like chats, voting, SMS and quiz
In addition, it is worth knowing that news, soap, quiz and sports
games, on the other hand, applications like video on demand sys-
are those genres during which participants mostly talk while
tems eventually including navigation and search or platforms for
watching and have the highest desire to share the viewing
user-generated content can be implemented. Innovative ap-
experience for traditional TV [30]. Generally it can be said that peo-
proaches are presented in [12] where the mobile device is used
ple expect to watch the same content as proposed by standard
as a secondary screen for navigation, here previewing content in
television and the study of Kaasinen et al. [47] shows that users
short clips while using the TV for the main program. Furthermore
do not often watch new piloted channels and they prefer the main-
the content can be manipulated to make it more interesting to
stream broadcast channels (e.g., MTV3). Reasons are that they
share it with other people. Hence interactivity plays an essential
know the mainstream broadcast channels and what kind of con-
role for designing interfaces according to HCI. Bernhaupt et al.
tent they get [47]. For example, if they have a preferred channel
[4] discovered that the usability of services influence user ratings.
for watching the news, they would also like to have it on Mobile
The rating was higher if it was easier to use. Another study [10]
TV [47]. However, the content for Mobile TV needs to be adapted
noted that success of a service depends on its easy and intuitive
to the small screen and differing viewing conditions. A still un-
use. Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. [46] found that users prefer a simple
solved problem is the composition of made-for-mobile sports con-
and intuitive navigation and search function to find the desired
tent, for instance soccer matches. On one hand, it is necessary to
content easily. The study of Kaasinen et al. [47] shows that users
show the whole pitch to understand what is going on, on the other
often have problems to find available services, and according to
hand it is necessary to show very small details such as the ball, as
Hussain et al. [42] it is essential for the success of Mobile TV that
to be able to follow the game. In their evaluation about interactive
users can easily find what they are searching. Based on a study
television, Bernhaupt et al. [4] noted that users were interested in
on interactive television [80], it has been shown that older users
local news or weather forecasts. Furthermore, Jensen [43] repre-
equally prefer a simple and easy navigation system. Furthermore,
sents the different and new opportunities which interactive televi-
they noted that the keys should be easily distinguishable and that
sion can provide to its viewers. For example content (like text,
users liked to be guided through the various steps. In [4] it is con-
graphics or video) can be laid over the currently displayed video
firmed that guided navigation was easier to follow for younger user
groups also. In [68] it has been shown that the usability of an IPTV
community platform is crucial for its acceptance. In addition,
Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. [46] pointed out that pausing and resuming
a program should be possible as well as loop streams. Interaction
opens the way for new business models. A very interesting and
not defined issue concerning interactivity resides in the field of
digital rights management (DRM) for mobile devices. Interactivity
enables the user to share, split, combine and edit the content thus
creating novel issues of research.
The way and the amount of interactivity proposed by a service
has high impact on the content needed, therefore this section is
tightly related to the next one where content parameters are dis-
cussed in more detail.

7. Content

Interesting or entertaining content represents the main attrac-

tion for users. In comparison to other services, platforms like You-
Tube offer very bad quality but its success is due to highly Fig. 5. Results of Mobinet 2005 by A.T. Kearney and University of Cambridge –
entertaining content that eclipses the lack of quality. Therefore content type [61].
 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
content with further interactive functions, to provide a space for
additional informations. Additionally, interactive television gives
users the possibility to select content on demand, and provides
space for a wide range of content types (e.g., news, movies or mu-
sic). However, the study of Kaasinen et al. [47] shows that users
only want to use on-demand videos if they are easy, effortless
and quick enough. Furthermore, users prefer to get information
about the size of the video and a descriptive title of the video be-
fore they start the download [47]. Personalization of the content
becomes more important, e.g., viewers can modify a program or
the system individualizes content based on viewer needs. For per-
sonalization, Chorianopoulos [16] presents two possible ap-
proaches: collaborative filtering and content-based filtering. The
collaborative filtering approach makes predictions which are based
on ratings from users who share the same rating patterns with the
active user [16]. In contrast, the content-based filtering approach
makes predictions based on the user’s previous preferences and
the user gets a selection of items which may be of interesting to
him/her [16].
7.2. User generated content
According to Kenton O’Hara [69], people want to possess and
create content. Platforms like YouTube are showing to have success
also for mobiles. Users wants to create their own content and to
share it with other users in mobile communities [82]. Furthermore,
the opportunity to generate content and to share it with other
users allows a wide range of possible applications. For example,
children and teachers can take photos or videos of the activities
in kindergarten which allows parents to see their child’s daily life
(e.g., with whom their children played) [66]. Mobile phones can
be also used as tools for creating and editing personal multimedia
content. Cesar et al. [12] presented an architecture for media con-
tent selection and organization, where users are also allowed to
personally enrich the content, e.g., by adding text comments or
drawings. Users enjoyed the application of these new features
and adopted them with ease. Field studies performed in the UK
and in Belgium confirmed these results. Furthermore, Juhlin et al.
[44] mention that the trend to allow users to broadcast video from
mobile devices to a web page as social medium has grown in pop-
ularity since 2005. Although users often try the technology, Juhlin
et al. [44] point out that for amateurs the opportunity to broadcast
video is not enough and therefore it is necessary to develop con-
cepts for better support. Taken together, it can be stated that the
sharing of user-generated content constitutes an important user
expectation.
8. Costs and commercials
Costs and commercials are a hot topics in the field of Mobile TV,
since someone needs to pay for the service. If interactivity is of-
fered instead of simple broadcasting, users can skip commercials,
but commercials are needed to finance the service. In [29] test per-
sons could choose between a flat fee of 6 5 Euros per month, a free
Mobile TV service with commercial interruptions like in traditional
TV and the possibility to pay a small amount of money (between
0.20 and 0.50 Euros) for single contents. The flat fee was the most
attractive option for test users, it has been chosen by 44.9%, fol-
lowed by 33.7% chosing interruptions through commercials, and
20.4% preferring to pay for single contents (see Fig. 6). In contrast
to the commonly used flat fee model, it is possible to pay for each
single content consumed. Currently this is a common practice
when selling pornographic content. All in all people are not willing
to pay much for Mobile TV [95,33,73]. For example, the study of
Kaasinen et al. [47] shows that users would accept to pay on aver-
183
Flat fee of max 5€ per
month
20.4%
No fee, short
45% interruptions for
commercials
33.7% Fee for each content
(0.20€ to 0.50€)
Fig. 6. Fee types for Mobile TV [29].
age €9.7 monthly and they would prefer ’’pay per view’’ payment
instead of paying for packages of channels, because they also have
to pay for channels which they do not watch. Furthermore, Miyau-
chi et al. [63] point out that reduction of noise and interruptions
are important aspects to consider if users have to pay for mobile
TV, because they would not pay for it if the TV reception condition
is not good enough. Also more recent studies [28] reveal that even
early adopters reject to pay for content (42%), they would prefer to
watch adds (71%). A user study considering the future of commer-
cials for Mobile TV has been performed by Zukunft Digital [105]. It
has been found that men and women have different tastes and
expectations. Short interruptions for commercials are felt as less
disturbing than in traditional TV. Interactive elements should make
sense and have a defined goal. Furthermore, results from [105]
confirm the position presented in [72]. It has been shown that
advertisements are likely to be considered as much entertaining
as the other content and viewed in a similar way. Consumers of
interactive services have the opportunity to watch what they want
to see, but the effect of the advertisement will be much higher due
to the possibility of more accurate tracking and measuring.
9. Technical parameters
Many reviews agree about the fact that for Mobile TV, specific
made-for-mobile content must be produced, but except for [54]
we could not find any indication on how this should be done.
Therefore we want to add some recent results showing the impor-
tance and influence of technical parameters.
9.1. Response time and channel switching
Especially for live sport events the immediacy of the content
delivery is very important. Consider the case where there is a time
delay of several seconds between the transmission of Mobile and
standard TV. An audience seeing the scoring of a goal in an impor-
tant championship with noticeable delay is likely to be severely
annoyed, even if this delay is as low as 15 s. In such a situation,
viewers of the delayed presentation may hear cheering from their
neighbors, but are still waiting to perceive the goal.
Response time is even higher for transmissions over satellite,
yet this case is of lesser importance since its main usage scenario
is in cars or in rural areas that are not crowded. A similar problem
exists for channel switching delays caused by time slicing currently
applied to save power consumption. People do not want to wait
too long [14] for the appearance of the new channel. Providing
low response times for channel hopping, being at least comparable
to the ones known from standard TV, is addressed in [79,40] and
still represents an important open issue for Mobile TV.
184 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
One solution of reducing the channel switching times could
consist in pre-loading content such as commercials or short clips
and to play them locally while waiting for a response. The impact
waiting times on the users’ satisfaction and its increase obtained
by showing preloaded content has been presented in [81].
9.2. Text quality
In this section, a simple way of improving Mobile TV quality is
presented. Knoche et al. has found [52] that when transcoding a vi-
deo from standard TV to Mobile TV, the text size from news tickers
usually becomes too small. As a consequence the perceived quality
can be significantly improved by simply increasing the text size of
a news ticker (see Figs. 7 and 8 as an example [52]).
9.3. Framerate
When bandwidth is limited a video cannot be transmitted with
both full picture quality and smooth motion. Instead, a compro-
mise for the encoding parameters has to be made, which on the
one hand satisfies the bandwidth restrictions, but on the other
Fig. 7. Recoded video with original news ticker font, Proc. of ACM Multimedia 2006
[52] Recoded video with increased font size, Proc. of ACM Multimedia 2006 [52]
Fig. 8. Temporal activity (TA) versus mean opinion score (MOS).
hand optimizes the perceived quality of the video. This compro-
mise may well depend on the content to be encoded. Therefore it
is necessary to know for which content type the fluid motion is
more important than detailed picture quality or vice versa. In
[7,19] it has been found out that good picture quality with a low
framerate returns generally better results than high frame rate
with lower picture quality. The result of the user study performed
in [7] state that for situations with limited bandwidth budget, for
news and comic contents containing little motion, the frame rate
should be reduced to 5 frames per second, while for a typical
advertisement and soccer game, a value of 10 frames per second
should be used.
Fig. 9 taken from [7] shows the quality perception for different
frame rates in relation to the amount of temporal activity indicat-
ing the amount of color changes over time. It can be observed that
for low temporal activity (below 8.7) the optimal frame rate is 5
frames per second while for high temporal activity it is 10 frames
per second. The curves representing 15 and 25 frames per second
result in lower quality parameter values.
Furthermore in [19] it is described that impairments after scene
changes are noticed less frequently than impairments in other
parts of a video.
9.4. Shot types versus resolution
Knoche et al. [51] investigated the effect of different shot types
in relation to low resolutions, being typical for mobile devices. For
news content the medium shot which portraits the upper half of a
subject’s body should be used, but for football content a shot show-
ing less detail is preferred. Furthermore it has been found that for a
young audience extreme long shots can be used when the resolu-
tion is 240  180 or higher. By choosing a lower resolution the per-
ceived quality may be poor. Knoche et al. considered in [53] the
problem described in Fig. 7. For sports events like soccer or ice
hockey matches, very large or extremely large shots need to be
used, to enable the user to follow the game. These shots have the
drawback of showing less detail, therefore the ball or the puck of
the match cannot always be identified. In [37] it is mentioned that
this happens to almost anyone watching ice hockey. Knoche pro-
posed in [53] a zooming scheme where participants could switch
between original and zoom enhanced soccer footage at three sizes
with the result that zoom factors between 1.14 and 1.33 were pre-
ferred for all sizes. Furthermore it was added that the optimal
zooming coefficient depends on the target display size.
9.5. Viewing distance, size and definition
The viewing distance for Mobile TV is at arm length. It does not
depend on the size of the screen, the content, or the resolution. In
[55] it has been evaluated that preferred viewing distances are
Fig. 9. Second approach of our framework for mobile multimedia applications.
 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
between 25 and 50 cm with an average of 32 cm. It is stated that
‘‘Mobile TV viewing distances might depend more on the posture of
people within a given environment’’.
Analysis about the dependencies between size and resolution
returned the following result: A resolution requires a minimum
size. More in detail: A minimum size of 19.6 mm was required
for a resolution of 120  90. Preferred sizes for 120  90 and
168  126 for devices with 116 ppi display are 32.6 mm and
37 mm.
9.6. Audio-visual quality
In Section 4.4 it has already been discussed that there are many
scenarios where people will not use headphones [64,95]. In this
case the question about Audio-visual quality is superfluous. In Sec-
tion 7 it has been stated that news, soaps, quiz and sport are those
genres during which participants talk mostly while watching [30],
at the same time these are the contents that people want to con-
sume via Mobile TV. This knowledge leads again to the question
whether audio-visual quality investigations do make sense for Mo-
bile TV.
Nevertheless, there are situations at home or during the lunch
break where audio-visual quality could matter, and in fact, accord-
ing to [46] users estimated good audio-visual quality to be a posi-
tive criterion.
In order to obtain a more detailed knowledge on this purpose,
audio-visual attention and its influence on subjectively perceived
quality has been studied for standard definition multimedia con-
tent by performing the following subjective test [56]: A video
source showing a moving element (ME) as well as a audio source
(AS) was processed in two different ways:
 Blurring the entire image, except for the moving element.
 Blurring the entire image, except for the audio source.
In Table 1, examples of strongly blurred frames that have been
shown to the audience of the described experiment are depicted
next to their source frame. It has been found that the users’ atten-
tion is more attracted by sound emitting objects than by any oth-
ers. Blurring effects on the sound emitting objects have caused
perceived quality degradation, while blurring effects on the mov-
ing elements generally did not change the quality perception.
It needs to be mentioned that the moving element of some
video material used in this experiment contains only looped mo-
tion continuously repeated during the whole presentation. This
monotony could be one of the reasons why the users’ attention re-
sults to be lower for the selected moving elements than for the
Table 1
Test material used during the experiment testing the influence of audio-visual attention on subjectively perceived quality [56].
}
185
sound source. Therefore, ongoing research is focusing on more
spontaneous motion elements.
9.7. Region of interest
According to the audiovisual study discussed above the visual
attention as well as the identification of the regions of interest
(ROI) of a video are crucial aspects for subjectively perceived qual-
ity estimation. Investigations have been performed on how this
information can be integrated in existing quality estimation tech-
niques such as the SSIM [98] and a significant increase in the pre-
diction and accuracy could be shown [20].
Table 2 shows the original image on the left, then in the middle
the same image distorted in a region of interest (the face below the
eyes) causing high annoyance and finally on the right the image
containing a distortion in the background on the top left resulting
in only low disturbances to perceived quality.
Based on this knowledge and in addition to the fact that mobile
devices are small and environmental conditions are far from being
optimal, it can be deduced that the quality of the region of interest
has even more impact on the quality perception of mobile TV con-
tent than it is estimated to be for traditional TV. Equally, back-
ground quality is estimated to be of even lower importance.
Hence, it has been proposed to automatically detect the foreground
an background of a video and to treat them differently by allocat-
ing more encoding bitrate to the foreground and less, e.g by using a
blur function, to the background [9]. By changing the saturation
value of a video frames further improvements regarding the video
quality can be reached. Table 3 shows (a) the original frame, then
(b) the desired segmentation and (c) the processed image with
blurred background with lower saturation and higher saturation
values allocated to the foreground. These settings require less
encoding bitrate than the original and subjectively perceived qual-
ity is currently under study. First results indicate that some quality
improvement could be assessed.
9.8. Codec and bitrate
Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. [45] tested different codecs for audio/
video material for mobile devices. Six different content types have
been under investigation at QCIF format and bitrates in a range
from 80 to 128 kbit/s. By summarizing all results the H.264 codec
returned the best quality.
In order to reduce server bandwidth for a true video on demand
system a new concept called Low Start has been presented recently
[8]. It consists in encoding the first part of the movie with a lower
bitrate than the rest. Action movies encoded with different Low
186 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
Table 2
Example illustrating the annoyance of distortions in different regions of an image [20].
Table 3
Improved Mobile TV video frame [9].
Start parameter values for mobile devices have been shown to an
audience with the result that a short low start with high bitrate
reduction is preferred to a lower bitrate reduction for a longer per-
iod of time. The result has been confirmed by performing the MSE
[11], SSIM [98] and VQM [103,99] of the test sequences with the
MSU Video Quality Measurement Tool [97].
In [2] the bitrate has been set to a maximum value and was then
decreased step by step in order to find the minimum bitrate for
mobile phone, PDA and laptop videos still rated as acceptable by
the test persons. For PDAs bitrate was still acceptable by using
50% of the original bitrate of 448 kbit/s and even more for mobile
phone and laptop.
9.9. Transmission schemes
We identified three different types of technologies for deliver-
ing Mobile TV: satellite-based, terrestrial and telecom-based tech-
nologies. Digital Video Broadcasting for Handheld (DVB-H) [23]
represents the most common format in Europe to deliver Mobile
TV. It offers high downstream data rates and time slicing is imple-
mented to reduce power consumption of small handhelds [16].
Interaction can be realized by combining DVB-H with other tech-
nologies. The satellite-based DVB version is DVB-SH as specified
in [25]. MediaFLO represents a competitive alternative to DVB-H.
It has been developed in the Unites States and is currently provided
by the company Qualcomm. FLO stands for Forward Link Only,
therefore the transmission path is one way [75]. Qualcomm has
performed a comparative study on DVB-H versus MediaFLO [76].
The Asian competitor from South Korea is called Digital Multime-
dia Broadcasting (DMB). S-DMB stands for operation via satellite
while T-DMB uses a terrestial mode as specified in [24]. Multime-
dia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) is a telecom-based broad-
casting service specified in 3GPP technical specifications [1].
Telecom-based alternatives are Broadcast and Multicast Services
(BCMCS) and Time Division-Synchronous Code Division Multiple
Access (TD-SCDMA), which is a 3G standard mainly used in the
People’s Republic of China.
9.10. Haptic elements
Until recently, communication between devices and users was
primarily focused on visual and audio channels. However, mobile
devices are generally requesting a large variety of demands on
users’ attentions requiring additional interaction schemes to sat-
isfy the user. In fact, during the last few years, mobile phones
equipped with a touch screen such as the IPhone, Ericsson Satio,
 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
Samsung Instinct s30, Samsung Eternerty or Nokia 5800 were
becoming very popular. In this way a larger variety of communica-
tion means based on the sense of touch could be considered.
According to MacLean [58], haptic feedback helps to alleviate
the visual and audio overload, by providing another communica-
tion channel. Bau et al. [3] point out that the haptic channel pro-
vides useful information for interacting with the physical
environment, because it is fast, needs little conscious attention
and allows encoding of abstract information. In particular, Farrugia
[26] states that interfaces on touch screens are perceived to be
more realistic if a haptic feedback after pressing the virtual buttons
is added.
However, to build an effective communication through touch, it
is necessary to have a deeper knowledge on the type and quantity
of adequate abstract information. Hence, knowledge on perception
limits and general understandability of distinguishable stimuli and
their meanings is required [58]. Therefore, studies have been per-
formed where several haptic patterns were developed and tested.
For example, Turunen et al. defined some haptic patterns for mo-
bile devices based on series of pulses with different intensity and
delays between the pulses and integrated them in a multimodal
media center interface [94].
Referring to the fact that mobile devices are mainly held in
hands or carried close to body, such haptic feedbacks are consid-
ered to be very effective for mobile devices, e.g., in alerting or
informing users via vibrations or varying pressures [85]. However,
MacLean [58] underlines that haptic feedback is only useful when
it is supportive for the users, otherwise it represents a further
annoying distraction. According to Farrugia [26], mobile gaming
and phone navigation are examples of successful haptic feedback
application. Mixed feedbacks are mainly used for voice and text
communication.
In the particular case of interactive TV, haptic feedback in-
creases users’ feeling to be more involved in the virtual world
[71]. However, Modhrain and Oakley [71] state that haptic feed-
back for interactive TV requires a very high update rate represent-
ing a practical production issue for high quality and stable
feedback.
9.11. Context awareness
In contrast to standard television, mobile multimedia services
are not consumed in a static way, e.g., lying on a sofa or sitting
on a chair. It is possible that some users’ watch the same content
at the bus station, at home, in a bar or in many other, different
places highly differing in their environmental background
conditions.
Nowadays, mobile phones are equipped with sensors such as
accelerometers to detect motion and light sensors to collect data
representing the current viewing conditions. Then, these data sets
are used to improve the quality of multimedia display, e.g., by
switching between portrait and landscape mode according to the
current holding position.
Many other parameters could be collected to improve the
knowledge on the users’ context [13] that could be used in many
different ways. For example, a procedure on integrating environ-
mental information in usability evaluation has been proposed
[41] and performance improvements due to intelligent systems
such as Proactive Replica Placement based on Mobility Prediction
have been researched [32]. Context-awareness as well as its
deployment seems to be an important and growing topic
nowadays.
When users are commuting the loudness changes of environ-
mental noise revealed to be very annoying. When changing from
silent to noisy areas the content can not be followed any more.
Hence, it is necessary to switch to a higher loudness level. As a
187
consequence when returning to more silent places the selected
loudness starts to be disturbing and needs to be readjusted. A com-
pensation method for loudness and auditory masking has been
presented in [83] and revealed to improve the quality of experi-
ence significantly.
10. Discussion
In the previous sections a large amount of single aspects have
been presented and analyzed. Summarizing, the following devel-
opment can be observed. From 2005 to 2008 Mobile TV has been
set up in several countries with high expectations. The offered ser-
vices consisted mainly in broadcasting live content and video on
demand, both predominantly focusing on professional content.
The success was limited due to several reasons:
In the beginning, a large amount of technical issues refrained
the acceptance of Mobile TV. For example several devices revealed
to have problems in receiving data, channel switching times were
and still are unacceptably long, proposed user interfaces were far
from being intuitive and pleasant to handle.
A second important issue were the costs that users had to con-
sider. For consuming Mobile TV it was necessary to buy a new,
rather expensive device and to switch to a more expensive contract
with the service provider. Hence, potential users were reluctant to
spend a noticeable amount of extra money without being certain of
the benefit to expect.
Content for Mobile TV was mainly obtained by recoding the
available TV content to a format of smaller size. In this way, users’
had to watch the same content as on TV just with lower quality.
Due to the retarding success of Mobile TV production companies
were not open to undertake significant investments for producing
made for mobile content. Hence, after the first excitement, Mobile
TV did not seem to be as attractive and successful as it supposed to
be.
However, during the last two years a large number of technical
issues have been solved. The availability of improved devices with
attractive user interfaces plays an essential role. More and more
users are in possession of a smart phone and have signed an ex-
tended contract with their service provider, e.g., with flat rate, in
order to have access to the internet. Today, additional costs for
the user for consuming mobile multimedia seem to be negligible.
As a consequence, a large and continuously increasing user group
has already adopted several new technologic elements. The barrier
for using also mobile multimedia besides other services is notice-
ably reduced.
Furthermore, the amount of available applications has signifi-
cantly increased. The free access to the iPhone and Android SDK
has encouraged a large number of developers to realise their ideas
and to contribute them to the community for free or for a small fee
on specific platforms. As a consequence, not only the way of con-
suming mobile multimedia has changed as predicted by Wipper-
berg, but these new applications also enable the users to
contribute their own content. For example the Reel Director App
enables the user to edit videos directly on the mobile phone. One
motivation for generating and contributing new content is based
on the success of the social platforms. Hence, Mobile TV nowadays
has a completely different shape than two years ago. It is strongly
associated to open decentralised platforms that are formed by the
users and the broadcasting television approach is only one of many
concepts for Mobile TV.
In Section 2.3 the selected mobile multimedia key factors have
been integrated in the DIME framework [102]. At this stage, it rep-
resents the former Mobile TV status.
Development of new technologies and future trends have influ-
enced users’ watching behavior. To consider the changes in the
188 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
Fig. 10. Second approach of our framework for mobile multimedia applications.
mobile multimedia communities, we modified our first approach
and added feedback loops to the users (see orange arrows in
Fig. 10). For example, new services, which assist social activities
between users, can change users’ motivations and allow them to
see the usage of mobile multimedia applications in a new light
(e.g., to use mobile videos to build their own communities).
Furthermore, the feedback loops to the users help to involve users
in the design and development process of mobile multimedia
applications. It can be noticed that due to recent developments
in the area of mobile multimedia the Human Centered Design
approach is widely applied.
11. Conclusion and future work
In this survey we analyzed results obtained by manifold studies
on Mobile TV from the user perspective, combining the Human
Centered Design with the Quality of Experience approach, because
it is increasingly necessary to consider and to include user needs
and expectations into the design process of a successful product.
We identified differences caused by cultural aspects, user pro-
files and others. Furthermore we presented a wide range of techni-
cal aspects that need to be considered in order to create and
propose a successful service. Finally, we deduced some important
open issues that represent the focus of our future work.
User: user groups can be defined by age, device, purpose of use
or social context. The best type of user profile still needs to be
found.
Mobile device: the acceptance of headphones is not clear and
further research will be done to investigate in more detail head-
phone acceptance and implications for the content production
in case of headphone rejection. Another issue consists in defin-
ing a meaningful usage of haptic elements such as different
types of vibrations or arm gestures.
Context: context awareness obtained by using sensors or other
measurement methods can be used to improve the offered
mobile service.
Mobile services and features: studies show that user priorities
often differ from currently offered services and features.
Content: users want to share and modify content on their
mobile devices.
Cost and commercial: the interplay of commercials and the prob-
lem of fee types are not solved yet. It will probably depend on
the quality and originality of the produced commercials.
Technical performance: according to sport, the quality of the pre-
sentation is not good enough. For live broadcasting and channel
switching the response time is still too high.
Currently there is a lot of information available for Mobile TV,
but the list of open issues mentioned above shows that there are
a lot of interesting and crucial questions that require further
investigations.
References
[1] 3GPP. Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS); Architecture and
functional description, 2008. Available from: <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/
Specs/html-info/23246.htm>.
[2] F. Agboma, A. Liotta, User centric assessment of mobile contents delivery, in:
Proceedings of MoMM’06, Indonesia, Yogyakarta, 2006.
[3] O. Bau, U. Petrevski, W. Mackay, Bubblewrap: a textile-based electromagnetic
haptic display, in: Proceedings of CHI EA’09, ACM, 2009.
[4] R. Bernhaupt, M. Obrist, M. Tscheligi, Usability and usage of ITV services:
lessons learned in an Austrian field trial, Computers and Entertainment 5 (2)
(2007).
[5] R. Bernhaupt, M. Obrist, A. Weiss, E. Beck, M. Tscheligi, Trends in the living
room and beyond: results from ethnographic studies using creative and
playful probing, Computers and Entertainment 6 (1) (2008) 1–23.
[6] C. Breunig, Mobile Television in Germany, Media Perspektiven 11 (2006).
[7] S. Buchinger, H. Hlavacs, Subjective Quality of Mobile MPEG-4 Videos with
Different Frame Rates, Journal of Mobile Multimedia 1 (4) (2006).
[8] S. Buchinger, H. Hlavacs, Optimal server bandwidth for mobile video on
demand, Annales des Télécommunications 65 (1–2) (2010) 31–46.
[9] S. Buchinger, M. Nezveda, W. Robitza, P. Hummelbrunner, H. Hlavacs, Mobile
TV coding, in: Workshop on IPTV Technology and Multidisciplinary
Applications, Zagreb, Croatia, 2009.
[10] C. Carlsson, P. Walden, Mobile TV – to live or die by content, in: Proceedings
of HICSS’07, 2007.
[11] G. Casella, E. Lehmann, Theory of point estimation, Springer Texts in
Statistics, 1998.
[12] P. Cesar, D. Bulterman, D. Geerts, J. Jansen, H. Knoche, W. Seager, Enhancing
social sharing of videos: Fragment,annotate, enrich and share, in: Proceedings
of ACM Multimedia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, October 26–31,
2008.
[13] G. Chen, D. Kotz, A survey of context-aware mobile computing research.
Technical report, Hanover, NH, USA, 2000.
[14] J. Chipchase, C. Yanqing, Y. Jung, Personal television: a qualitative study of
Mobile TV users in south Korea, in: Mobile HCI, Conference workshop on
Mobile TV, 2006.
 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
[15] K. Chorianopoulos, Scenarios of use for sociable Mobile TV, in: A. Marcus, A.C.
Roibás, R. Sala, editors, Mobile TV: Customizing Content and Experience,
Human–Computer Interaction Series Part 1.
[16] K. Chorianopoulos, Personalized and mobile digital TV applications,
Multimedia Tools Appl. 36 (1–2) (2008) 1–10.
[17] H. Crump, E. Schneiders, D. Hoss, Renaissance der terrestrik, Digitalmagazin.
Info, Media Perspektiven 2 (2008).
[18] K. De Moor, I. Ketyko, W. Joseph, T. Deryckere, L. De Marez, L. Martens, G.
Verleye, Proposed framework for evaluating quality of experience in a mobile,
testbed-oriented living lab setting, Mobile Networks and Applications 15
(2010) 378–391.
[19] N. Ende, H. Hesselle, L. Meesters, Towards content-aware coding: user study,
Interactive TV: A Shared Experience 4471 (2007) 185–194.
[20] U. Engelke, H.-J. Zepernick, Optimal region-of-interest based visual quality
assessment, Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, vol. 7240, San Jose, USA,
2009.
[21] L. Eronen, Combining quantitative and qualitative data in user research on
digital television, in: Proceedings of the First Panhellenic Conf. with Inter.
Participant on HCI, 2001, pp. 51–56.
[22] L. Eronen, User centered research methods for interactive television, in:
Proceedings of EuroITV’05, 2005.
[23] ETSI, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Transmission System for Handheld
Terminals (DVB-H), ETSI EN 302304, Nov 2004.
[24] ETSI, Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) DMB video service User Application
Specification, ETSI TS 102 428, Jun 2005.
[25] ETSI, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Framing structure, channel coding
and modulation for satellite transmission to handheld (DVB-SH), ETSI EN 302
583, Jan 2008.
[26] M. Farrugia, Future user interfaces for mobile devices, in: Proceedings of
WWW’06, 2006.
[27] M. Fiedler, T. Hossfeld, P. Tran-Gia, A generic quantitative relationship
between quality of experience and quality of service, Network, IEEE 24 (2)
(2010) 36–41.
[28] I. Frank N. Magid Associates. The OMVC Mobile TV Study: Live, Local
Programming will Drive Demand for Mobile TV, Technical report, 2009.
[29] N. Friedrich, Nutzung? Forschung! Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage,
in: TVienna, 2008.
[30] D. Geerts, P. Cesar, D. Bulterman, The implications of program genres for the
design of social television systems, in: Proceedings of UXTV’08, 2008.
[31] D. Geerts, K. De Moor, I. Ketykó, A. Jacobs, J. Van den Bergh, W. Joseph, L.
Martens, L. De Marez, Linking an integrated framework with appropriate
methods for measuring QoE, Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience
(2010).
[32] J. Gossa, A.G. Janecek, K.A. Hummel, W.N. Gansterer, J.-M. Pierson, Proactive
replica placement using mobility prediction, Mobile Data Management
Workshops 0 (2008) 182–189.
[33] G. Graf, Mobisodes & Co – ein Praxistest. Magazin TENDENZ, Media
Perspektiven, 2006.
[34] Guardian. Mini-series for upwardly mobile chinese, Guardian News & Media
2008, 2005. Available from: <http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-28-2005-
72274.asp>.
[35] B. Hanington, Methods in the making: a perspective on the state of human
research in design, Design Issues 19 (4) (2003) 9–18.
[36] G. Harboe, Introduction to social TV, in: A. Marcus, A.C. Roibás, R. Sala (Eds.),
Mobile TV: Customizing Content and Experience, Human–Computer
Interaction Series Part 1.
[37] R. Harper, T. Regan, M. Rouncefield, Taking hold of TV: learning from the
literature, in: Proceedings of OZCHI’06, Sydney, Australia, 2006.
[38] M. Hassenzahl, A. Platz, M. Burmester, K. Lehner, Hedonic and ergonomic
quality aspects determine a software’s appeal, in: Proceedings of CHI’00,
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
[39] M. Hassenzahl, N. Tractinsky, User experience – a research agenda, Behaviour
& Information Technology 25 (2) (2006) 91–97.
[40] C.-H. Hsu, M. Hefeeda, Bounding switching delay in Mobile TV broadcast
networks, in: Proceedings of SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking,
vol. 7253, 72530A, 2009.
[41] K. Hummel, A. Hess, T. Grill, Environmental Context Sensing for Usability
Evaluation in Mobile HCI by Means of Small Wireless Sensor Networks, in:
Proceedings of MoMM’08, 2008.
[42] Z. Hussain, M. Lechner, H. Milchrahm, S. Shahzad, W. Slany, M. Umgeher, T.
Vlk, P. Wolkerstorfer, User interface design for a mobile multimedia
application: an iterative approach, in: Proceedings of ACHI’08, Feb 2008.
[43] J.F. Jensen, Interactive television: new genres, new format, new content, in:
Proceedings of IE’10, 2005.
[44] O. Juhlin, A. Engström, E. Reponen, Mobile broadcasting: the whats and hows
of live video as a social medium, in: Proceedings of MobileHCI’10, ACM, New
York, NY, USA, 2010.
[45] S. Jumisko-Pyykkö, J. Häkkinen, Evaluation of subjective video quality of
mobile devices, Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, 2005.
[46] S. Jumisko-Pyykkö, M. Weitzel, D. Strohmeier, Designing for user experience:
what to expect from mobile 3d TV and video?, in: Proceedings of UXTV’08,
2008.
[47] E. Kaasinen, M. Kulju, T. Kivinen, V. Oksman, User acceptance of Mobile TV
services, in: Proceedings of MobileHCI’09, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
[48] A. Kill, MobiTV, Inc. Confirms Size Does Matter, Technical report, 2010.
189
[49] H.-J. Kim, K.-H. Lee, J. Zhang, In-service feedback QoE framework, in:
Proceedings of CTRQ’10, 2010.
[50] H. Knoche, J. McCarthy, Mobile users needs and expectations of future
multimedia services, in: Proceedings of WWRF12, 2004.
[51] H. Knoche, J. McCarthy, M. Sasse, How low can you go? the effect of low
resolutions on shot types in mobile TV, Personalized and Mobile Digital TV
Applications in Springer Multimedia Tools and Applications Series 36 (1–2)
(2008) 145–166.
[52] H. Knoche, J. McCarthy, M.A. Sasse, Reading the fine print: the effect of text
legibility on perceived video quality in mobile TV, in: Proceedings of ACM
Multimedia, Santa Barbara, USA, October 2006.
[53] H. Knoche, M. Papaleo, M. Sasse, A. Vanelli-Coralli, The kindest cut: enhancing
the user experience of mobile TV through adequate zooming, in: Proceedings
of ACM Multimedia, Augsburg, Germany, 2007.
[54] H. Knoche, M. Sasse, Getting the Big Picture on Small Screens: Quality of
Experience in Mobile TV, Idea Group, 2007.
[55] H. Knoche, M. Sasse, The sweet spot: how people trade off size and definition
on mobile devices, in: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, Vancouver, Canada,
2008.
[56] J.-S. Lee, F. De Simone, T. Ebrahimi. Influence of audio-visual attention on
perceived quality of standard definition multimedia content, in: Proceedings
of QoMEX’09, 2009.
[57] B. Lievens, E. Vanhengel, J. Pierson, A. Jacobs. Does mobile television enhance
a new television experience?, in: A. Marcus, A.C. Roibás, R. Sala, (Eds.), Mobile
TV: Customizing Content and Experience, Human–Computer Interaction
Series Part 1.
[58] K.E. MacLean. Using haptics for mobile information display, in: Proceedings of
PERMID’08, 2008.
[59] M. Maguire, N. Bevan, User requirements analysis: a review of supporting
methods, in: Proceedings of IFIP’02, 2002.
[60] J. Mäki. Finnish Mobile TV results, August 2005.
[61] N. Menon, M. Page, M. Watt, S. Bell. Mobile data services: a selection of key
findings, in: Proceedings of Mobinet’05, 2005.
[62] A.S. Mitchell, K. O’Hara, A. Vorbau. Social properties of mobile video, in: A.
Marcus, A.C. Roibás, R. Sala, editors, Mobile TV: Customizing Content and
Experience, Human–Computer Interaction Series Part 1.
[63] K. Miyauchi, T. Sugahara, H. Oda, Different attitudes concerning the usage of
live mobile tv and mobile video, in: A. Marcus, A.C. Roibás, R. Sala (Eds.),
Mobile TV: Customizing Content and Experience, Human–Computer
Interaction Series Part 1.
[64] K. Miyauchi, T. Sugahara, H. Oda, Relax or study?: a qualitative user study on
the usage of mobile tv and video, Proceedings of EuroITV’08, vol. 5066/2008,
Salzburg, 2008.
[65] S. Moller, K.-P. Engelbrecht, C. Kuhnel, I. Wechsung, B. Weiss. A taxonomy of
quality of service and quality of experience of multimodal human–machine
interaction, in: Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, Jul 2009.
[66] J. Näsänen, A. Oulasvirta, A. Lehmuskallio. Mobile media in the social fabric of
a kindergarten, in: Proceedings of CHI’09, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
[67] Nokia. DVB-H. Mobile TV Forum. Available from: <http://www.mobiletv.
nokia.com/technology/dvb/> (accessed 18.12.2008).
[68] M. Obrist, Usability & user experience: preliminary results from evaluating an
IPTV community platform, in: Proceedings of EuroITV’08, Salzburg, Austria,
2008.
[69] K. O’Hara, A.S. Mitchell, A. Vorbau, Consuming video on mobile devices, in:
Proceedings of CHI’07, April 2007.
[70] V. Oksman, E. Noppari, A. Tammela, M. Mäkinen, V. Ollikainen. Mobile TV in
everyday life contexts – individual entertainment or shared experiences?, in:
Proceedings of EuroITV’07, 2007.
[71] S. O’Modhrain, I. Oakley. Touch TV: adding feeling to broadcast media, in:
Proceedings of EuroITV’03, 2003.
[72] S. Orgad, This box was made for walking. Nokia Mobile TV report (2006).
[73] O. Petrovic, M. Fallenbck, C. Kittl, A. Langl, Mobile TV in Austria 2 (2006).
[74] Projektgruppe Mobiles Fernsehen, Mobiles Fernsehen: Interessen, potentielle
Nutzungskontexte und Einstellungen der Bevölkerung, Media Perspektiven
(2007).
[75] Qualcomm, FLO Technology overview (referred 19.12.2008), 2007. Available
from: <http://www.mediaflo.com/news/pdf/tech_overview.pdf>.
[76] Qualcomm, Technology Comparison: MediaFLO and DVB-H (referred
19.12.2008), 2007. Available from: <http://www.qualcomm.com/common/
documents/white_papers/MF_WP_FLOvsDVBH.pdf>.
[77] P. Repo, K. Hyvönen, M. Pantzar, P. Timonen, Users inventing ways to enjoy
new mobile services – the case of watching mobile videos, in: Proceedings of
HICSS’04, 2004.
[78] E. Reponen, J. Lehikoinen, and J. Impiö, Mobile video in everyday social
interactions, in: A. Marcus, A.C. Roibás, Sala, (Eds.), Mobile TV: Customizing
Content and Experience, Human–Computer Interaction Series Part 1.
[79] M. Rezaei, I. Bouazizi, V. Vadakital, M. Gabbouj. Optimal Channel Changing
Delay for Mobile TV Over DVB-H, in: Proceedings of PORTABLE’07, 2007.
[80] M. Rice, N. Alm, Designing new interfaces for digital interactive television
usable by older adults, Computers and Entertainment*** 6 (1) (2008) 1–20.
[81] W. Robitza, S. Buchinger, H. Hlavacs, Acceptance of mobile TV channel
switching delays, in: Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience,
Trondheim, Norway, 2010.
[82] A.C. Roibás, S. Johnson. Unfolding the user experience in new scenarios of
pervasive interactive TV, in: Proceedings of CHI’06, 2006.
190 S. Buchinger et al. / Entertainment Computing 2 (2011) 175–190
[83] M. Sack, S. Buchinger, H. Hlavacs, Loudness and auditory masking
compensation for Mobile TV, Proceedings of BMSB’10, Shanghai, China, 2010.
[84] R. Schatz, L. Baillie, P. Fröhlich, S. Egger, T. Grechenig, What are you viewing?
exploring the pervasive social tv experience, in: A. Marcus, A.C. Roibás, R. Sala
(Eds.), Mobile TV: Customizing Content and Experience, Human–Computer
Interaction Series Part 1.
[85] A. Sears, J.A. Jacko, Human–Computer Interaction: Design Issues, Solutions,
and Applications, Crc Pr Inc., 2009.
[86] M. Siller, W.J. QoS Arbitration for Improving the QoE in Multimedia
Transmission, in: Proceedings of VIE’03, 2003.
[87] E. Simmons, 2010 American Mobile Consumer Report, Technical report, 2010.
[88] C. Sodergard, Mobile television - technology and user experiences, vol. 506,
VTT Publications, 2003.
[89] L. Sørensen, H.W. Nicolajsen, Generating ideas for new mobile TV services:
accepting and socializing mobile television, in: Proceedings of EuroITV’10,
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
[90] L. Stockbridge, Mobile TV: Experience of the UK Vodafone and Sky Service, in:
Proceedings of EuroITV’06, Athens, Greece, May 2006.
[91] D. Stone, C. Jarrett, M. Woodroffe, User Interface Design and Evaluation,
Morgan Kaufman Publ. Inc., 2005.
[92] Study Group 12. Quality of Experience Requirements for IPTV Services, ITU-T
Recommendations G.1080, ITU, 2008.
[93] B. Svoen, Consumers, participants, and creators: young people’s diverse use of
television and new media, Comput. Entertain*** 5 (2) (2007).
[94] M. Turunen, J. Hakulinen, J. Hella, J.-P. Rajaniemi, A. Melto, E. Mäkinen, J.
Rantala, T. Heimonen, T. Laivo, H. Soronen, M. Hansen, P. Valkama, T.
Miettinen, R. Raisamo, Multimodal interaction with speech, gestures and
haptic feedback in a media center application, in: Proceedings of
INTERACT’09, 2009.
[95] M. Vangenck, A. Jacobs, B. Lievens, E. Vanhengel, J. Pierson, Does mobile
television challenge the dimension of viewing television?, An explorative
research on time, place and social context of the use of mobile television
content, Proceedings of EuroITV’08, vol. 5066, Salzburg, 2008.
[96] R.-D. Vatavu, Creativity in interactive TV: personalize, share, and invent
interfaces, in: A. Marcus, A.C. Roibás, R. Sala (Eds.), Mobile TV: Customizing
Content and Experience, Human–Computer Interaction Series Part 1.
[97] D. Vatolin, A. Moskvin, and O. Petrov. Msu video quality measurement tool,
December 2008. Available from: <http://compression.ru/video/
quality_measure/video_measurement_tool_en.html>.
[98] Z. Wang, E. Simoncelli, A. Bovik. Multi-scale Structural Similarity for Image
Quality Assessment, in: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Asilomar Conf. on
Signals, Systems and Computers, 2003.
[99] A. Watson, Toward a perceptual video quality metric, San Jose CA, 1998.
[100] L. Whitney, Smartphones to dominate PCs in Gartner forecast, Technical
Report, 2010.
[101] J. Wippersberg. Die Forderung nach ‘‘sehbarem Fernsehen, in: TV 3.0
Journalistische und politische Herausforderungen des Fernsehens im
Digitalen Zeitalter, Germany, Berlin, Mar 2008.
[102] W. Wu, A. Arefin, R. Rivas, K. Nahrstedt, R. Sheppard, Z. Yang, Quality of
experience in distributed interactive multimedia environments: toward a
theoretical framework, in Proceedings of MM’09, ACM, New York, NY, USA,
2009.
[103] F. Xiao. Dct-based video quality evaluation, 2000. Available from: <http://
compression.ru/video/quality_measure/vqm.pdf>.
[104] D. Zillmann, The coming of media entertainment, in: D. Zillmann, P. Vorderer
(Eds.), Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2000, pp. 1–20.
[105] Zukunft Digital, Mobile TV Studie, Werben & Verkaufen, 36 (2008).