Collaboratv: Making Television Viewing Social Again
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CollaboraTV: Making Television Viewing Social Again Mukesh Nathan Chris Harrison Svetlana Yarosh University of Minnesota Carnegie Mellon University Georgia Inst. of Technology [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Loren Terveen Larry Stead Brian Amento University of Minnesota AT&T Research Labs AT&T Research Labs [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT was first collected, a 50% increase since the 1950s, and a 12% With the advent of video-on-demand services and digital increase from 1996. The average person watches 4.5 hours video recorders, the way in which we consume media is un- of programming a day, with the average household tuned in dergoing a fundamental change. People today are less likely for more than 8 hours [10]. to watch shows at the same time, let alone the same place. Given the significant place that television holds in our As a result, television viewing, which was once a social ac- daily lives, our research focuses on understanding the so- tivity, has been reduced to a passive and isolated experience. cial aspects of television viewing – especially in today’s age To study this issue, we developed a system called Collabo- of social behavior-altering technological advances – and the raTV and demonstrated its ability to support the communal utility of social television systems for meeting the new chal- viewing experience through a month-long field study. Our lenges that such advances bring about. study shows that users understand and appreciate the utility of asynchronous interaction, are enthusiastic about Collabo- Declined Social Interactions Around Television raTV’s engaging social communication primitives and value Television was once championed as the “electronic hearth” implicit show recommendations from friends. Our results which would bring people together [23]. Indeed, television both provide a compelling demonstration of a social tele- shows provide a common experience, often affording even vision system and raise new challenges for social television total strangers a social connection on which to initiate con- communication modalities. versation. This effect blossomed in the 1950s when two- thirds of all Americans tuned in to watch “I Love Lucy” [17] Categories and Subject Descriptors with their families. However, a fundamental shift in how we consume media is degrading such social interactions sig- H.5.3 [Group and Organization Interfaces]: Asynchro- nificantly – an increasing number of people are no longer nous interaction watching television shows as they broadcast. Instead, these users are favoring non-live media sources, such as Digital General Terms Video Recorders (DVRs), Video-On-Demand services (e.g. Apple’s iTunes Video Store), and even rented physical me- Design, Experimentation dia (e.g. DVDs via Netflix). To complicate matters further, televisions are outnumbering people in the average home; Keywords less than a fifth of households have a single television [5, 9]. social television, interactive television, social tagging, in- This is leading to a decline in ability for people to interact stant messaging, asynchronous communication, video and is eroding once strong social ties. People are increas- ingly watching TV without their families, with some studies suggesting at least half of Americans usually watch alone 1. INTRODUCTION [17]. However, all indications point towards a lack of ability Television is undeniably a major component of modern to communicate, not a lack of desire. society. In the United States, it is not only the dominant media activity but is also considered the most exciting and The “Water-cooler Effect”: Thing of the Past? influential media type [10, 17, 22]. Despite increasing com- petition from the internet, television usage has been steadily Television shows often act as a conversation starter, enabling increasing and is now at its highest level since viewing data the “water-cooler effect” [17], where groups congregate and discuss a television show, automatically assuming everyone in the group has seen it. For example, co-workers could dis- cuss a show from the previous night at work the following Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for day. However, this effect is heavily dependent on a property personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are of live television: shows have a fixed broadcast time. This not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies means that after a show has aired, everyone who wanted to bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to see it, must have watched it (or missed it). DVRs enable republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific people to watch shows days, weeks, and even years after permission and/or a fee. uxTV’08, October 22–24, 2008, Silicon Valley, California, USA. they first air. This trend towards asynchronous viewing, Copyright 2008 ACM 978-1-60558-100-2/08/10 ...$5.00. although not omnipresent today, is becoming a dominant 85 media consumption mode. DVRs are already found in 20% while consuming video content; we focus on how our results of American homes [3] and worldwide adoption is predicted answer our three research questions. Finally, we discuss the to reach 250 million users by 2011 [2]. On-demand com- implications of our results for future design and research. mercial video downloads are also booming, jumping 255% from 2005 to 2006 [4]. Similarly, Netflix, the most popular 2. RELATED WORK DVD rental company, has experienced nearly 50% growth in subscribers annually since 2002 [1]. Social Television Systems What does asynchronous viewing mean for the water cooler Television-based communication has been the focus of sub- talk? Many people will not have watched the most recently stantial research. Many of the ideas in CollaboraTV are ex- aired episode by the following day. In fact, some people may tensions of successful elements in previously developed sys- be multiple episodes or even seasons behind. This makes tems. However, CollaboraTV distinguishes itself in several conversing about a show considerably more problematic. If significant ways. a group of friends meet and talk about the latest episode, Xerox PARC’s Social TV [15] envisioned the use of a those who have not seen it are left out. It is even possi- shared audio channel, where groups of users could interact ble that some may avoid the conversation entirely, fearing verbally. The project also introduced the idea of a movie that yet-to-be-seen episodes will be spoiled. People may theater-themed visualization scheme for user presence. In- also moderate their conversations in order to prevent re- deed, CollaboraTV’s virtual audience is a direct descendant vealing spoilers to friends that are one or more episodes of this concept. However, unlike Social TV, avatars in Col- behind. However, this hampers the exchange of important laboraTV are dynamic and used as a conduit for communi- and interesting details that were revealed in recent episodes. cation (comments, gestures and expressions). Moreover, by the time lagging people do catch up, and want AmigoTV represents one of the earliest efforts in this do- to discuss the show, it is likely others will have forgotten main [6]. Like Social TV and CollaboraTV, avatars are used important details or simply have lost interest, substantially to visualize user presence. The system offers a series of faces degrading the quality of interaction. as avatars, and allows users to select a demeanor (e.g. happy Unprecedented Level of Program Choice face, angry face), allowing avatars to operate on an addi- tional dimension: emotion. Users can also generate shared Television viewers today can easily be overwhelmed by the video effects, for example a flaming ball whizzing across the number of channels as well as programs. Gone are the days screen. Like Social TV, AmigoTV allows users to commu- when one could flip through a 40-page TV guide and decide nicate via speech. what to watch. Given the plethora of content today, the task ConnecTV is a tightly integrated instant messaging and of finding something relevant to watch has become very diffi- television application [7]. From a user’s perspective, friends cult. As a result, viewers often resort to randomly scanning are placed into one of three groups: “watching this channel”, multiple channels (‘channel surfing’) to find a show of inter- “watching another channel”, and “not watching”. In addition est. Digital TV service providers have tried to respond to to being able to chat with friends that are watching the same this information overload problem in a few ways. Electronic show, the system also allows messages to be sent to friends program guides, which are little more than digital forms of watching different shows. The latter serves as an invitation their paper predecessors, still require viewers to sift through to switch channels and join the sender. If a user is not a multitude of static choices. Vendors also provide basic available when the invitation is sent, it will be saved until search capabilities along with TV programming service, but that user comes online, at which point the user can start again the task of searching for the illusive “good” show rests watching the associated content sent by the friend. The on the viewer. Despite the availability of technology aids, Media Center Buddies system [18] by Microsoft, is similar. viewers still prefer channel surfing as a method to select what Telebuddies [14] promotes communication amongst syn- to watch, often expressing considerable dislike for onscreen chronous viewers using a series of events incorporated into program guides [21]. DVR systems, like the TiVo, even au- the media stream. The authors offer a quiz example, where tomatically record shows they think users will like. But the users are formed into groups and compete.