Ten Things You Didn't Know About Mobile TV
Readers of this essay may want to download the following complimentary material: Mobile TV, Personal Experiences [4MB PowerPoint] a paper entitled Personal Television: A Qualitative Study of Mobile TV Users in South Korea [0.2 MB PDF], and An Anatomy of Mobile TV Use Cases [7MB, PowerPoint]
With Mobile TV being hyped as the next big thing in the telecoms world the big question is whether the experience is sufficiently compelling to draw people into become paying subscribers. Mobile TV faces significant competition for people's time, not least from other applications on the device itself. Where, how and why do people watch Mobile TV? What elements need to be in place to offer a seamless and compelling experience? What are the real world barriers to a achieving this and how can they be overcome? And ultimately what are the characteristics of this emerging medium that set will it apart from its competitors and help it both find and cement its niche in the media landscape?
In September 2005 a team of researchers from Nokia Cui Yanqing, Younghee Jung and myself worked with students and a professor from Yonsei University's HCI Lab - Boreum Choi, Jinwoo Kim, Inseong Lee and Jieun Yoon to conduct a field study in Seoul, South Korea to explore actual usage of TU Media's (then) recently launched broadcast Mobile TV service.
At the time of this research there had been plenty of qualitative studies looking at Mobile TV trials (for references download this [0.2MB]) but none that involved paying consumers. Since extensive quantitative data already existed for Mobile TV use in South Korea the research team decided to focus on qualitative and exploratory research study. Our scope was broad - to document the factors that affect the Mobile TV viewing experience including how usage affects the perception of the device as a 'mobile phone' and reflecting on the elements of this experience that were unique to the Korean context and how equivilent activities such as commuting would be different in other cultures. We explored people's motivations to use Mobile TV, documented contexts and barriers of use, carefully noting user behaviors within these contexts and design implications for future products and services.
Whilst the primary deliverable of the project - a user experience report was valued by internal clients the timing of the study meant that the results were positioned to influence thinking about the design of next generation Mobile TV devices. As always I won't cover anything directly related to new products. Since the research paper goes into the details of the study I'll focus on ten things that stood out for me personally:
Surprisingly for a portable device home use is a strong use cases for Mobile TV - it offers a very personal experience including micro-level control over where, what and how to watch.Given the alternative forms of media and entertainment in the home use hightlights the extent to which Mobile TV is about personal experiences and we expect this to strengthen as new content forms are created. (Slides 51 to 64 of this presentation covers home use case in more detail.)
Factor in what happens before, during and after watching.
Finding a suitable programme to watch is a non-trivial task - limited display real estate makes browsing, choosing and mentally retaining information on programmes challenging. The time lag when changing channels on the South Korean Satellite DMB make channel surfing a chore. Whilst you might assume that video on demand and time-shifting features like digital video recorders will make it easier to find suitable content ultimately the task changes from one of sorting though less relevant content to find a gem to one of sorting through gems to find a diamond.
Discussing what was watched 'have you seen the new Nelly video?' or 'can you believe what happened in last night's OC?' plays an important role in defining and maintaining social groups. The mobile phone is well placed to help people schedule, share and comment on TV watching experiences.
Accessories designed to enhance the watching experience such an external antenna will not be carried over time, and if carried will be ineffectively used. Technology objects that are carried but not frequently needed tend to end up at the bottom of a bag and have a habit of being damaged or forgotten.
Some devices ship with a spare battery useful for power hungry features like Mobile TV (including a second battery in the package is a common practice in China). However the logistics of remembering to keep the battery charged, remembering to carry it when leaving home, believing it is sufficient charged when it is needed and even, when the power on the original runs out, remembering that a spare is carried makes it an impractical solution.
Headphones/headsets are the main exception to the people-don't-carry-device-accessories rule but it is not all plain sailing. The effort and time it takes to locate and set up headphones varies considerably, some cultures and demographics have embraced head sets whereas others have not. The longer it takes to set up the device fo use the less likely the user is to be able to enjoy content during short, macro-breaks.
Why do most people remember to carry their headphones when they take their iPod? It is feasible to carry the device with the accessory attached and the the primary function of the device (listening to music) cannot be enjoyed if headphones are not present. As more people use the music playing features on their mobile phone there is an increased likelyhood of TV watching simply because the barriers to set up the device are lower. Mobile TV and radio/music may compete for eyeballs and eardrums but ultimately they are complimentary activities.
The posture for watching Mobile TV will vary, is largely dependent on context and will impact on the types of content people will watch. For example for interactive programmes the user needs to be near enough to the device to interact. Slide 51 in this presentation [7MB download] gives examples of watching postures.
Mobile TV will only be watched during train, bus or subway commuting if the user has a seat and is able to support the device on a lap with one or both hands. Any carried bags are likely to be placed on the lap, otherwise the user risks engaging in TV content at the expense of maintaining the security of belongings. Holding the device whilst standing is possible for short periods of time only i.e. macro breaks. More thoughts about designing for commuting here.
The home context provides the most flexibility on viewing styles - supporting both interaction (lean forward), and more ambient viewing (lean back). Use in the home can extend to long periods of time, not least because the device can be plugged into a power socket. Indeed, whilst the portability of a Mobile TV device allows movement within the home the user is likely to remain tethered to the nearest available power socket.
Very few users will watch TV when actively on the move - the risks of doing this in the urban jungle are simply too great. However as my colleagues Fumiko Ichikawa+ pointed out people who text message whilst walking sometimes follow in the path of the person in front in essense leveraging a second pair of eyes and ears.
Whilst an immersed, sensorially engaged TV watching experience is possible we need to ask whether it is desirable? A commuter engrossed in an episode of CSI Miami is less likely to notice a crime committed against themselves. An active part of commuting is tracking when to get off. Overlaying time, the estimated time of arrival and/or location information over TV programming actively supports commute watching.
Interactive experiences require interaction. The inherent properties of a TV equipped mobile phone in particular its connectivity, camera & video capabilities and the user's familiarity with the keypad mean that the pieces are in place for a compelling designed-for-mobile-interactive-television experience. However it is wrong to assume that the user will always be holding the device that he or she will be holding the device in a manner that is condusive to interaction, or indeed that she is in a state of mind to interact. Simple question: Which is more likely to lead to interaction - a person ambiently watching a Mobile TV in a docking station whilst doing homework, or a person sitting on a sofa remote in hand?
Some modes of watching would benefit from a remote control though this conflicts with how people carry and use accessories.
Shared used is possible with up to 4 people but the proximity to the device and the cheek to cheek nature of the viewing experience means that its not something that you are likely to do with your colleague or an annoying younger brother. The upside is that required close proximity might spur an occasional romance.
Mobile TV functionality also changes what it means to be 'a phone'. A high school user might reject someone's request to borrow their phone but would find it harder to turn down a request to watch TV highlights. If the phone becomes more borrowable then the final two points become more important.
Personal device ownership makes it possible to enjoy what we have dubbed Very Personal Media Consumption or VPMC. Most people assume that very personal media is a euphemism for adult content and whilst this kind of content is encompassed by this definition we consider VPM as any content that you treat as personal in your current context. (Note that VPM was not covered with our study participants, these thoughts are an extension of related research). VPM might be a picture of you with a dodgy haircut or a cartoon lampooning the leader of your country - in fact anything you don't want to share with others. The consequences of discovery range from mild social discomfort to jail time depending on the culture and context. On a personal device you're free to watch what you want it's just that there consequences to being discovered.
The definition of VPM changes depending on your current context for example moving between work and home environments or on whom is currently in the room. Changes in context can be affected by the user or forced on them by external forces. The degree to which similar content is available elsewhere affects societal perception of its social acceptance. In India a poorly shot mobile phone video showing its director - a school boy receiving fellatio from a female school mate was widely circulated by Bluetooth (background reading here) but carrying it across borders might fall foul of child pornography laws in a society such as the UK.
The experience capturing features on the phone e.g. audio recorder and camera can both be used to create VPM and lead to unintentionally compromised situations - it is common for people to hand a camera phone to members of their peer group for proximate sharing and VPM may be stored in the same browsable destination as other media. Not all personal content is equal - there's a gulf between the most VPM and everyday photos and video that you would share with friends. To get a sense of your own VPM think about what you allow guests in your home to see, and what you would keep hidden from view.
Secret Use became our unexpected fourth use case. It is not surprising it was unexpected - it is after all difficult to observe secret activity.
Secret use is the act of using the device in contexts where viewing TV is not socially acceptable for example in a classroom, library or meeting, or when the user is supposed to be engaged in other tasks e.g. homework. It may be that the content is not socially acceptable or (in the case of downloaded material) legally acceptable (its technically possible to find examples of broadcast content that is illegally acceptable) and the act of secrecy may be to hide viewing from individuals or from everyone present. In contexts where the perceived risk of theft is high e.g. riding a night bus in central London secret use will be more driven by a desire to keep the device secure.
Secret use requires the device to be hidden - a pencil case and glasses case were two examples from our study (the photo above shows a phone hidden in a glasses case). The device may be in plain view but the act of viewing content is disguised. Secret watching can be supported by such features as form factors that are suitable for being hidden (not obvious when you consider the kinds of devices on the market ), content that can be enjoyed without audio, a remote control (allowing interaction without appearing to touch the device) and very narrow viewing angles for the display - similar to those found on an ATM display. Narrow viewing angles conflict with the practice of shared viewing.
The practice of secretly watching mobile TV is likely to change as TV equipped handset reach the mainstream - secrets are after all easier to keep when people don't know what they are looking for. Expect to see some kind of subtle reaction behaviours - where people actively show others in proximity that they are not engaged in TV watching for example by placing their device face down on the table during a meeting.
As with VPMC there are consequences to being discovered. In some US schools parents are asked to come to school to collect inappropriately used mobile phones confiscated by teachers, in Egypt a phone can be confiscated for the rest of the school term.
The following materials compliment this essay: