See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220724842
A Comparative Study of Remote Controls for Digital TV
Receivers
Conference Paper · July 2008
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-69478-6_42 · Source: DBLP
CITATIONS
READS
8
3,037
4 authors:
Jane Lessiter
Jonathan Freeman
Goldsmiths, University of London
Goldsmiths, University of London
37 PUBLICATIONS 1,362 CITATIONS
93 PUBLICATIONS 3,685 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Andrea Miotto
Eva Ferrari
Goldsmiths, University of London
Goldsmiths, University of London
11 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS
11 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Collective Experience of Empathic Data Systems View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathan Freeman on 01 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
A Comparative Study of Remote Controls for Digital TV
Receivers
Jane Lessiter, Jonathan Freeman, Andrea Miotto, and Eva Ferrari
i2 media research ltd
Psychology Department Goldsmiths
University of London New Cross
London SE14 6NW UK
{J.Lessiter, J.Freeman, A.Miotto, E.Ferrari}@gold.ac.uk
Abstract. This study was designed to explore the usability of three remote controls that operate a specific digital set top box (Logik LDR V3) amongst consumers who may have more difficulty than most in accessing and using digital
television equipment. Participants were UK consumers (a) aged over 75 years
with various sensory, physical and/or cognitive impairment, (b) aged under 45
years with learning difficulties, and (c) aged under 45 years without any sensory, physical or cognitive impairment. Using a repeated measures design, participants were asked to perform a series of everyday tasks using remote controls
with digital television equipment. Subjective and objective data were collected
to explore how intuitive and desirable the remote controls were, and how well
subjective preferences related to objective performance data. The study
provides evidence that user interfaces that meet the UK Digital TV receiver recommendations (V1.3) for digital terrestrial television (section 5: remote controls) better meet the needs of consumers likely to face difficulty using digital
television equipment.
Keywords: usability, user interface, digital television, digital set top box, remote control, elderly, impairment.
1 Introduction
The process of digital television switchover (DSO) started in the Copeland region at
the end of last year and is scheduled to end in 2012. For many, digital television
switchover will involve learning to use a new remote control for everyday television
use. Some consumers with the biggest DSO related support needs are entitled to apply
for assistance via a Government established Digital Switchover Help Scheme
(DSHS).
Research into good practice of remote control design features has been reported
previously [1,2,3,4,5]. Lab-based research into button labeling and other usability
research has informed the UK Digital TV receiver recommendations (V1.3) for digital
terrestrial television [1,2,4]. Recommendations include variation in button size, shape,
texture and spacing, functional groupings, and positioning.
M. Tscheligi, M. Obrist, and A. Lugmayr (Eds.): EuroITV 2008, LNCS 5066, pp. 318–322, 2008.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008
A Comparative Study of Remote Controls for Digital TV Receivers
319
The study reported here was commissioned by the UK Government Department
for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to address specific items
under the Usability Action Plan [9]. It provides BERR with an independent evaluation
of the market in this area to inform their work. The subjective and objective performance benefits of 3 remote controls that operate the DSHS set top box used in the
Copeland switchover, the Logik LDR V3, were tested in this multi-phase research
study (see Figure 1). Each remote control was compared against the remote control
features recommended in the UK Digital TV Receiver Recommendations (V1.3).
Results showed that remote control 1 (DSHS in Copeland) best matched the recommendations (90%), followed by remote control 2 (manufactured by TW Electronics;
85%), then remote control 3 (manufactured by Tvonics; 63%). Next, each was subjected to a detailed expert evaluation. And finally, the comparative usability (intuitiveness) and aesthetic appeal of the three remote controls was tested by consumers
likely to have more difficulty than others in getting and using digital television
equipment, and a control group of consumers. This paper focuses on the final experimental phase of this research.
Fig. 1. (From left to right) Remote control 1 (DSHS in Copeland), 2 (TW Electronics) and 3
(Tvonics)
2 Method
Thirty-five people were recruited comprising 3 sub-samples of participants: (a) 12
adults aged over 75 years (‘75+’) including people with various combinations of mild
visual and dexterity impairments, and age related cognitive decline; (b) 11 adults aged
under 45 years, with various learning (‘cognitive’) difficulties including Autism,
Asperger’s Syndrome, and Attention Deficit Disorder; and (c) a control group of 12
adults aged under 45 years, without any sensory, cognitive or physical impairment
(‘young’).
A repeated measures design was employed. The trial order with each remote control was counterbalanced across participants. The independent variable was remote
control for which there were three types: (i) the remote control that was supplied with
the DSHS set top box in Copeland, designed to meet remote control recommendations
(rc1); (ii) the ‘Echo’ remote control, manufactured by TW Electronics, also designed
320
J. Lessiter et al.
to meet remote control design recommendations and able to control the DSHS digital
box as well as basic functions of the TV to which the DSHS digital box is connected
(power-standby on/off, volume up and down, mute) (rc2); and (iii) a thin, curved
edged remote control that uses the same infra-red code-set as that receivable by the
DSHS digital box, which had not been specifically designed to meet the remote control recommendations and has a younger target market than catered for by the Help
Scheme (rc3).
Participants were asked to perform a series of 12 typical TV-use tasks, which relate
to basic use, access service use or interactive service use, with each remote control.
The tasks were presented in fixed presentation order in a logical sequence that might
be typical with TV use, ranging from ‘change channel’ (basic use), through ‘access’
and ‘exit’ ‘text’ (interactive service use), ‘access subtitles’ (access service use); to
‘switch off set top box’ (basic use). Time to identify the correct button was recorded
by two independent observers. Time was recoded into one of five categories [A=Pass
<10s; B=Pass 11-20s; C=Pass 21-30s; D=Fail >30s (time out); E=Fail, participant
gives up]. At the end of each trial simple 4 point Likert scale ease of use and attractiveness ratings were collected. At the end of the three trials, participants were asked
to directly compare the remote controls (judge their favourite, most expensive, most
similar to home TV remote control). Participants were thanked, de-briefed and received a small payment for their participation.
3 Results and Conclusions
Participants performed better with the remote controls that more closely met
Core Receiver Requirements. Across all groups participants performed fastest with
remote control 1, then remote control 2, then 3. Statistically this difference (irrespective of user group) approached statistical significance (F(2,62) = 3.04; p.< 0.06). This
effect was largely due to faster performance with remote control 1 compared with
remote control 3; no other remote control comparisons (rc1 vs. rc2; rc2 vs. rc3) approached significance.
Adults aged over 75 years, with a range of impairments had the most difficulty
using all 3 remote controls. Participants in the (‘young’) control group were able to
complete all the usage tasks with each of the remote controls, with limited differences
in time taken to complete the tasks with each of the remote controls. The difference
between user groups (irrespective of remote control) was highly significant (F(2,31) =
17.78; p.<0.01). For all tasks taken together, each user group was significantly different from each other (p < 0.05); the ‘young’ group was significantly faster than the
‘cognitive’ group which in turn was significantly faster than the ‘75+’ group. The
‘75+’ group found that the remote control which least met design guidelines and relied most on button labels to identify button functionality was the most difficult to
use. For this remote control, button layout was indistinct and uniform and all button
shapes and sizes were identical. In contrast, the ‘75+’ group found that the remote
controls which best met design guidelines were the easiest to use; they had larger
handsets with variation in button size, shape, layout and height.
A Comparative Study of Remote Controls for Digital TV Receivers
321
Similar proportions of adult participants aged over 75 years, with a range of
impairments, successfully completed usage tasks within the designated time limit
using remote controls 1 and 2; they were less able to complete usage tasks with
remote control 3. For the tasks of switching the digital set top box on (at the start of
each trial) and switching it off (at the end of each trial) successful completion within
the designated time limit of 30 seconds was more likely with remote control 1. This
result is not surprising given that remote control 2 included two power standby on/off
buttons, one for the digital box, the other for the television.
Participants aged over 75 years were more likely to ‘change channel’ (numeric
channel entry, and channel up and down) in under 10 seconds with remote control 2
than with remote control 1, a result that is likely to have arisen from the atypical location of the “0” (zero) key on remote control 1.
Ease of use ratings were consistent with the extent to which the remote controls
meet Core Receiver Requirements. For all user groups as a whole, there was a significant main effect of remote control (F(2,64) = 5.24, p < 0.01): remote control 1 was
rated significantly more easy to use than remote control 3 (p<0.01), and remote control 2 was rated more easy to use than remote control 3 although this difference only
approached significance (p = 0.07).
The difference between user groups’ ease of use ratings were significant (F(2,32) =
13.8; p < 0.01): the ‘75+’ group gave significantly lower ease of use ratings to all the
remote controls compared with both the ‘young’ and ‘cognitive’ groups, but there
were no significant differences between the ease of use ratings of these latter two
groups.
There was a significant user group*remote control interaction (F(4,64)=2.72,
P<0.05). Whilst there was little difference in ease of use ratings across remote controls for the ‘young’ sample, for the ‘cognitive’ and ‘75+’ user groups remote control
1 was perceived as easier to use than remote control 2, which in turn was perceived as
easier to use than remote control 3.
Attractiveness ratings. Overall, statistically there were no significant main effects of
remote control or user group on attractiveness ratings, though the latter approached
significance. However there was a significant user group*remote control interaction
(F(4,64) = 2.51, p = 0.05). Whilst there was little aesthetic preference for any remote
control amongst the ‘75+’ group (all remote controls were rated similarly), for the
‘cognitive’ group there was a preference for remote control 1, then 2, then 3; and for
the ‘young’ group, the reverse was found (preference for 3, then 2, then 1).
Other ratings. Results for other ratings are beyond the scope of the current paper,
and are published elsewhere.
Finally, significant proportions of the ‘75+’ participants in the experiment did not
find the design of any of the trial remote controls sufficiently intuitive to enable them
to complete a variety of usage tasks. This finding suggests a need for the provision of
additional tools to help, be it step-by-step usage instructions or a remote control that
accesses reduced functionality. Indeed the performance results suggest that the inclusion of interactive navigation functions on remote controls can complicate usage for
some older consumers without providing the user benefits for which they are designed
to provide access.
322
J. Lessiter et al.
Acknowledgements
This work was commissioned by the UK Government Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. i2 media research limited at Goldsmiths would like
to thank the following organisations for their assistance with recruitment of participants in this study: The Darby & Joan Club, Croydon; Toucan Employment, London;
and Goldsmiths, University of London.
References
1. Summary of Research on the Ease of Use of Domestic Digital Television Equipment
(March 2006)
2. Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Davis, R., Dumbreck, A.: Understanding DTT remote control button labelling: a multimethod approach. In: Second European Conference on Interactive
Television (EuroiTV 2004), University of Brighton (2004)
3. Freeman, J., Lessiter, J., Williams, A., Harrison, D.: Easy TV 2002 Research Report. ITC
and Consumer’s Association (2003)
4. Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Davis, R., Dumbreck, A.: Helping viewers press the right buttons:
Generating intuitive labels for digital terrestrial TV remote controls. Psychnology 1(3),
355–377 (2003)
5. Freeman, J., Lessiter, J.: Easy to use digital television receivers: remote control buttons
and functions used by different types of consumer. Report for Ofcom (2007)
6. Freeman, J., Lessiter, J., Beattie, E.: Digital Television Switchover and Disabled, Older,
Isolated and Low Income consumers. Report commissioned jointly by Digital UK and Ofcom’s Advisory Committee on Older and Disabled people (ACOD) (2007)
7. Freeman, J., Lessiter, J., Pugh, K.: Equipment needs of consumers facing the most difficulty switching to digital television. Report for the UK Department of Trade and Industry
(2006)
8. Klein, J., Scott, N., Sinclair, K., Gale, S., Clarkson, J.: Equipment needs of consumers facing the most difficulty switching to digital television. Report for the UK Department of
Trade and Industry (April 2006)
9. Government Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, BERR has updated its Action Plan on usability of digital TV receivers (October 25, 2007)
10. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., Carey, T.: Human–computer interaction. In: Karoulis, A., Demetriades, S., Pombortsis, A.: Comparison of Expert-Based
and Empirical Evaluation Methodologies in the Case of a CBL Environment: The Orestis
Experience (2006); Computers and Education 47(2), 172–185 (1994)
View publication stats