ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
How do people really interact with TV?: naturalistic observations of digital tv and digital video recorder users
Full text PdfPdf (151 KB)
Source Computers in Entertainment (CIE) archive
Volume 5 ,  Issue 2  (April/June 2007) table of contents
Interactive TV
SECTION: Learn and play with interactive TV table of contents
Article No. 10  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISSN:1544-3574
Author
MICHAEL J. DARNELL  Microsoft TV, Mountain View, California
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 17,   Downloads (12 Months): 155,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1279540.1279550
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

To understand how people really interact with digital TV and digital video recorder (DVR) systems, 10 people were recruited, 6 with DVRs and 4 with non-DVR digital cable or satellite TV systems. Video-recording equipment was set up in their homes to record their TV viewing. The person viewing as well as the TV content being viewed were recorded as the person watched TV. Afterwards, the recordings were reviewed and analyzed by the experimenter together with the viewer, who then described his or her behavior. The results show that overall the most common way people interacted with TV was in avoiding advertisements and finding new programming to watch when the current show ended. These results can be used to find ways to improve how users experience TV systems.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
BERNOFF, J. 2004. The Mind of the DVR User: Media and Advertising. Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA.
 
2
CHOATE, J. 2003. The DVR Monitor Wave IV. C Cubed, LLC.
 
3
CORNWELL, N.C., EVERETT, S., EVERETT, S.E., MORIARTY, S., RUSSOMANNO, J.A., TRACEY, M., AND TRAGER, T. 1993. Determining RCD use: Methodology matters. In, The Remote Control Device in the New Age of Television, J. Walker and R. Bellamy, Jr. (eds.), Praeger, New York, 43-56.
 
4
EASTMAN, S. T. AND NEWTON, G. D. 1995. Delineating grazing: Observations of remote control use. J. Communication 4,1,77-95.
 
5
LEE, B. AND LEE, R.S. 1995. How and why people watch TV: Implications for the future of interactive television. J. Advertising Research 35, 6, 9-18.
 
6
MICROSOFT. 2005. Making technology conform to peoples' lives. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/apr05/04-04Ethnographer.mspx. Retrieved Nov. 29.
 
7
NIELSEN MEDIA. 2005. What TV ratings really mean (and other frequently-asked questions). http://www.nielsenmedia.com/whatratingsmean/. Retrieved Nov. 29.
 
8
NORMAN, D.A. 2003. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.
 
9
RITSON, M. 2003. Creative business: Talking, reading, tasking. Financial Times (Feb. 4).
 
10
ROBERTS, J. L. 2005. Play it again, TiVo. Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10073890/site/newsweek/. Retrieved Nov. 29.
 
11
RUZEK, P. 2004. Ignoring TV ads is the norm, research shows. Marketing Update. http://www.ami.org.au/AMIMU/04Oct/0410_advertising_webcast5.htm. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2006.
 
12
TV DIMENSIONS. 2006. In-Pod Commercial Positioning. Media Dynamics, New York, p. 335.