Universal Remote

C
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t
USER INTERFACE: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE UNIVERSAL REMOTE
Abstract
In homes across the country users tune into various television networks and interact with a multitude of technology. Often there are separate remotes, but commonly, there is one universal remote. This universal remote is meant to operate several technologies such as a television, audio system, and various inputs like Blu-Ray players and DVD players. There are numerous designs, interfaces, and overall functions for universal remotes. We found it interesting that universal remotes are extremely varied. This suggests a misnomer, in a sense there is nothing universal about it. Our group would like to simplify the universal remote while still providing all of the functionality without much of the aggravation. This qualitative assessment of the universal remote examines how users feel about the interface of three different types of universal remotes in an effort to simplify and relate to the user best. Participants were interviewed or attended focus groups. They interacted with three different remotes that include: a standard Comcast Universal Remote, and iPad universal remote application, and a prototype created by the group. The prototype was meant to test a simplied interface that limited the number of buttons.
Problem Statement
Universal remote interface is overcomplicated and changes depending on the remote being used; they need to be updated to promote interactivity and simplied navigation.
Qualitative Experiment
Interviews and focus groups were conducted in a quiet room around a table. In the center of the table three remotes were placed on the table. Our experiment included three different interfaces for universal remotes. They include an iPad application titled Re (Figure 1), a Comcast Remote (Figure 2), and our prototype that was ran as a .swf le on a computer. (Figure 3). Below you will see an screen shots of the prototype along with an explanation of the buttons and overall design. Included is the logic behind the design and groups attitude towards the layout and buttons created within each of the input pages. ! ! !
S e m e s t e r P r o j e c t!
A Qualitative Assessment
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t The Proctor used a script that introduced the experiment and prompted participants to read over their consent forms. Once the forms were signed they were asked to note that they were to assess the interface not the actual feel or ergonomics of the remote. This was particularly important when it comes to the assessment of the prototype as the participants were interacting with a computer, and not an ergonomically designed remote. The participants packets included a sheet that gave them three specic tasks to complete with each interface so they would be able to answer their questionnaire. Once the tasks were complete they answered their questionnaires. While the participants interact with the interfaces and complete their questionnaires the proctor had an observational note sheet to ll out for each participant. At the conclusion of the questionnaire being lled out the proctor went over the answers with the participants. In the event it was a focus group through notes and accounts of the interaction and individual behavior of participants was documented. At the conclusion of the questionnaire discussion the proctor thanked the participants for their time and releases them from the interview or focus group.
Problems
Originally we set up our experiment to be conducted quantitatively. Though we thought we were still assessing users feelings we realized that the scaling of the questions could still be analyzed statistically. Soon after we revised our experiment and created questionnaires to be conducted in interviews and focus groups. In order to being any trials we had to create a prototype. This was an extensive process. We went through several versions. Below are screen shots of the versions as they were rened and nalized.
!!! ! ! ! Above Created By: Michael Ziller ! ! !

!!!
Above Created By: Dragan Aleksovski with aid from Lois Hanna
Above Created By Lois Hanna ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
Above Created By Amanda Muha Coding completed by Michael Ziller
Subjects
Participants were not tracked by specic demographics in any statistical or mathematical way. Our experiment was meant to qualitatively evaluate the feelings and thoughts on universal remote interfaces. We did not conduct statistical evaluations of the subjects ages, ethnicities, or experience level with technology. General observations on demographics were found based on the results of our interviews and focus groups, they are not scientic evaluations. Overall our subjects were spanned from 18 to late 50s. Subjects were rather even in gender. There was no majority of female to male. Though we completed trials with a vast age group technological experience was not that varied. Subjects were asked if they had or had not used an iPad before as well as a standard universal remote. All participants had operated a universal remote before, a vast majority had also used an iPad before. **Demographics like age, gender, and experience level were not factorials in the experiment.
Materials
Materials that were required to conduct this qualitative assessment include a laptop or computer that was capable of running a swf le. A mouse was required to complete the task on the computer. A second universal remote utilized was a standard Comcast Universal Remote, and nally an iPad was needed. The iPad needed to run a universal remote application. The group selected the Re application set to the Samsung TV option (see Figure 2 above).
Methods
Our qualitative assessment was designed to be conducted in a consistent manner. Packets were put together that went through the process of the experiment in order or actions. Each proctor worked off a script to effectively, efciently, and methodically go through the process of the assessment. Proctors also carried a copy of both the interview and focus group packets in order to effectively answer any and all questions about the experiment. Participants were greeted with thanks, supplied with a consent form and questionnaire packet. They also spoke with a proctor on an individual basis our with a group in a focus group. The discussion was an account of their answers on the questionnaire.
Our Prototype
We based the design of our prototype after much research and gained knowledge from past courses. It was our belief that universal remotes include too many buttons that overwhelm users. After all, if provided too many options, users will not choose anything at all. It as our decision as a group to limit the number of buttons for each of the inputs and on the main page in order to make a simpler interface that does not present the user with too many options. The prototype also includes a feedback area so as to visually prompt users as to what operations they are completing. We have learned throughout our education that feedback is essential for users. It also features graphics to depict the inputs that are being controlled. We have learned that generally people depend on their sense of sight 80% of the time. In order to feed the eyes we felt it was best to limit text and include graphical depictions. Text is included so as to assure that the users are clear as to which input they are selecting. In order to simplify the remote the group placed a section at the top that remains the same no matter which input is being operated. All inputs require volume and will essentially need the option to return to the home page. Also, we felt the power button should be present at all times. The top area also includes the inputs and the feedback area. It
S e m e s t e r P r o j e c t! A Qualitative Assessment
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t also only includes one setting button that controls the basic settings for all of the inputs. This is meant to be general preferences and settings.
Main Page
TV Input
The television input includes the same top portion featured on the main page. It also includes number buttons for input based on the users viewing desires. It is also equipped with a guide button so as to quickly view what is currently on the television. A previous channel was included to allow faster return to what was being viewed previously. An exit button is included as well. Arrow buttons on the bottom left give the user the option to scan by going up or down wether it be in the guide or the channel when in the general viewing area. Television settings like picture, aspect ratio, etc are controlled in the main pages settings button.
! !
! !
! !
! !
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t ! ! ! !
DVD & Blu-Ray Input
The DVD & Blu-Ray pages are identical as the require the same needs. There is a selection button that is navigated with the arrows on the page. There is also a select button that allows the user to enter their selection. The pages are also equipped with rewind, fast forward, stop, play, and pause buttons. Again, we did our best to limit the buttons present on the pages, but also provide users with the essential options they need.
!
Audio Input
The audio pages includes four additional buttons to the main portion on top. This means the scan up and scan down buttons allow the user to ip through all of stations that are available. There is also a programmed button meant for programmed stations. Above you see the main audio page; however for the future it would go deeper into all of the stations that have been programmed. This is the same of the settings. Settings is different from the main pages settings in that it is meant specically for audio such as genre: jazz, rock, alternative, classical. Also, this would include other options that include treble, bass, balance, etc.
Research
Dragan Aleksovski Research Reading and analyzing the rst article, Introduction to the Special Issue on Human- Computer Interactions and Collaborative Virtual Environments, has given me insight as to what they are, how they function, as well as how they are expected to function. Collaborative Virtual Environments, as the name itself suggests are virtual environments where a user can perform a task. It also stands as a mean of communication. They enable the user to perform a task on his/ her own time, while not slowing down the work and staying up-to-speed. The disadvantages to this would be the lack of connectivity (Internet) and lack of user knowledge about the technology it takes to aid the user with the task. The second article I analyzed, Guidelines for Multimodal User Interface Design, deals with achieving the interaction closer to natural human-to-human communication. This article goes more in-depth of the technological and personal challenges that the user may have while performing tasks. It also focuses on the impact it would have on the user such as, protecting the users privacy, making the interaction entertaining in order to keep the user occupied, as well as making the protocol easily adaptable by the user. The articles are very useful because one of them takes a broad approach towards informing the reader about why/ how the user would react to using and relying on technology for performance of tasks. It states about the possibilities that enable the user more relaxed way of working. The other article is very specic and lists very important points that must be considered prior to engineering something that a user will work with. It lists aspects such as simplicity, common sense, the right of privacy and security, and avoidance of multitasking. In other words, it focuses on having the user do only what is necessary, while not burdening him/her with the steps required to complete it.
Lois Hana Research After reading a number of articles about remotes and doing our own research into what consumers want in a remote we came up with a simple, smaller, and easier touch screen remote that can program more than one device into it. Our experimental universal remote looks like a cell phone. One of the articles was Security, Privacy, and Personalization: Informing Next-Generation Interaction Concepts for Interactive TV, by Regina Bernhaupt, Michael M. Pirker, Astrid Weiss, David Wilnger, and Manfred Tscheligi. They described a smart home as one where all of the lights, tv, and heating/air conditioning are all on one small remote system creating an intelligent home. This article had its basis in the European countries mostly. America is still behind on smart homes. They emphasized security, privacy, and personalization in their study. They had their subjects use clay, paper and crayons to depict their dream remote. Some looked like a tv with antenna, a glove with nger changing ability, a cell phone, a ngerprint for security, scissors, or a taser for security. The future according to this study will be invisible tvs, dvd players, or surround systems so that robbers will have less reason to steal these items. One of the things we did not try in our universal remote was the security issue relating to kids watching things they should not or people stealing the remote for their own tvs, dvds, or surround sound systems. Dragan, Mike, Amanda, and I all did a basic version of what our remote should look like. Amanda is the leader so she picked her version for us to use. Mike and I also used play dough and clay to make a mock -up of what our universal remote should look like so we did some of the things that the article I read had their subjects do.
10
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t Michael Ziller Research Assessing the Usability of a Wearable Computer Interface with Split Button Conguration
ABSTRACT: A wearable computer interface with split button conguration was constructed using Arduino Lilypad components on the front of a vest with the goal of assessing its usability in an activity involving at least one hand. INTRODUCTION: Wearable computer interfaces (WCIs) are input/output devices worn in the user's personal space to control a computer-based system. They are meant to travel with the user, that is, they are always accessible by the user and allow the user to perform other tasks concurrently while being worn. WCIS Comprise Ofmicrocontrollers, sensors, and power supplies that could be sewn onto other materials and connected with conductive thread. Goal: Their goal was to develop a wearable interface with a split button conguration that is easy to learn and use, especially during activities where at least one hand is in use. What they are using it for: they reviewed recent usability studies that include controls used for media players, the primary use of their prototype. Objective: The main objectives of this exploratory study were to examine the effectiveness of the placement of the controls for a wearable interface and to recommend possible improvements to the interfaces design. Based on research they found participants had higher error rates with the touch input remote, but from an aesthetic point of view they preferred the look of it. The participants perceptions of the accuracy of the two types of input buttons indicates some people are unlikely to buy a touch input remote until it is easy to use and provides timely feedback thus they chose the physical button layout. What they learned: 1. 95% of the time the user had to look at vest to locate button. 2. About 30% of the time users used hand from opposite side of body to operate vest, even more interesting only 25% of users didn't "crossover" during the tests. 3. Error rate was adjusted Wald 95% CI 13%-22% error rate out of 294 attempts of hitting button. 4. Also tested multitasking: typing while getting prompts from vest and baseline wpm went from 41.40 to 31.95 which is a slight decrease however the accuracy rates didn't reveal a signicant difference. 5. However the Comfort and Acceptability Measures I believe from her questions were skewed so I didnt want to reference that (She even noted that). Conclusion: Even though the vest accomplished most of its requirements. For future work they need to address the placement of the buttons by considering what lower regions on the front of the vest would be acceptable. Fastening
11
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t the buttons to some sort of adjustable track so users can position the buttons to their taste, second modication would be in the design of the buttons themselves make it more fashionable.
1. 2.
Area of research: The area that it is in is the wearable computer interface with split button conguration. It is basically wearing a clothing interface on a remote or MP3 player. How it applies to our project: It applies to our project because this person was creating an interface and she did a lot of research on which interface would be best and easiest to use without looking at the interface or multitasking. This is perfect for our project because we want to know what is the best interface to use for making our universal remote. Also we want the remote to be so simple and easy that the user can accomplish tasks easily and promptly, hopefully while doing something else or not looking at it.
3.
!
How does it prove/reject our ndings: If you look through my article analysis above there are a lot of things to prove or reject our ndings, the ! most important are; (1) participants had higher error rates with the touch input remote, but from an aesthetic point of view they preferred the look of it. For our project we never tested error rates without actually looking at our prototype but her research shows !
! ! ! !
that the error rate would go up on our prototype if we used a touch screen. It does prove our ndings that ! our prototype would be more liked because it is a touch screen so it appeals more to the new trend of touch ! screens, and (2) Is the Crossover phenomena were people crossover the hands to hit buttons. Meaning ! they use there left hand to hit buttons on the right side of the screen.
4.
How can it improve the future of our prototype: The Crossover phenomena is something we could use to help our future prototype because it would help
us gure out where to better place our buttons because we could see which ngers are used to hit certain buttons and if we can see a consistent pattern for when people do Crossover their ngers so we can take advantage of that phenomena Remote evaluation for post-deployment Usability improvement: Denitions: Remote evaluation- is dened as usability evaluation where evaluators are separated in space and/or time from users. A Critical Incident- is an occurrence during user task performance that indicates something (positive or negative) about usability. Problem Statement: Although existing lab-based formative evaluation is frequently and effectively applied to improving usability of software user interfaces, it has limitations. Project Teams want higher quality, more relevant, usability data more representative of real world usage. Perhaps the most signicant part of "remote usability Evaluation" methods, is the need for a project Team to continue formative evaluation downstream, after Implementation and deployment.
12
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t Most software: Applications have a life cycle extending well beyond the rst release. The need for usability improvement does not end with deployment, and neither does the value of lab based usability evaluation. Fortunately: Deployment of an application creates an additional source of real-usage usability data. However, you must be careful with the data of the feedback because it mostly relates to the satisfaction of the user, not detailed data observed during usage (like a critical incident) and can't be directly related to specic task performance the kind of data you need for formative usability evaluation. In the context of formative usability evaluation, a critical incident is an occurrence during user task performance that indicates something (positive or negative) about usability. Goal of their work was to develop and evaluate a remote usability evaluation method for capturing critical incident data. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! No direct interaction is needed among user and evaluator during an evaluation session Data capture is cost-effective, and data are high quality and therefore relatively easy to Convert into usability problems. Tasks are performed by real users Users are located in normal working environments Users self-report own critical incidents Data are captured in day-to-day task situations
What they learned: That just about anyone can identify, report, and rate the severity level of their own critical incidents. Bad news the traditional video capture method didn't work because it took a screen shot before or after a critical incident so they had to redesign the video capture method. Solution: A software tool residing on the users computer is needed to support collections of critical incident reports from users about problems they encounter during task performance. So whenever usage difculty is encountered, users click on a Report Incident button, it opens a textual form, in a separate window from the application, for users to enter a structured report about the critical incident encountered, and causes the users computer to store a screen-sequence video clip showing screen activity immediately prior to the task. Objectives of the Study: Can users report their own critical incidents and how well can they do it? Can evaluators use critical incident data to produce usability problem descriptions and how well can they do it?
13
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t Tasks: During these tasks, users reported each critical incident they believed they encountered, using the Remote Evaluation Report Window. Following the evaluation session, each user subject completed a questionnaire asking about the experience as a remote user. Objectives of the Study: Can users report their own critical incidents and how well can they do it? Conclusion: The study indicated that users are generally capable of identifying high and medium severity critical incidents and most of the critical incidents missed by users, but which might be identied by an expert, were low severity. Area of research:
1.
The area that it is in is Remote evaluation for post-deployment. It is basically the area/eld were the proctor is not present when the user tests your software/hardware. Instead, you give them a brief training on how to nd critical incidents and give them a video capture software to log the critical incidents.
How it applies to our project: 2. It applies to our project because the article as a whole tells you how to conduct an experiment and what makes a user comfortable and uncomfortable when doing an experiment. Also how to get effective feedback from our users and how we can get good feedback from a massive experiment with 100s if not thousands of thousands of trials and users. How does it prove/reject our ndings:
3.
It really doesnt prove or reject our ndings it is kind of just a guideline on how to go about picking what type of style of trials you want and how to go about doing it the right way.
How can it improve the future of our prototype:
4.
It can help improve our future prototype because it can help us get a larger amount of participants without having to get a whole bunch or professional proctors and evaluators to deliver and look at our data. Instead, we give them video capture software and briey explain and show them how to use it and nd critical incidents and phenomena so that we can get large amounts of useful feedback to help us improve our future prototype.
Amanda Muha Research Using a game controller for relaying deictic gestures in computer-mediated communication. This experiment aimed to improve the loss of non-verbal communication when communicating via alternative locations i.e. skype, Facetime, etc. They desired to prove that using a pointing device during video-conferencing will limit the loss of non-verbal communication. This particular subject may not directly relate to the universal remote. However, I found that the idea of a pointing device to determine deictic gestures did correlate to the idea of using a remote control to complete a task. The experiment was found to be successful because it allowed the users to create a technical solution that solved a problem using a pointing device to relay information. The knowledge gained from this experiment allowed us to consider gestures and how people use their arms to complete a task. This does relate to remotes and the need/lack of need to gesture when changing a channel. Depending on the remote, gestures would be different. A standard remote would require one lifting their arms, pointing, possibly leaving the remote
14
S e m e s t e r P ro j e c t stationary but moving ones arm to select the buttons. An iPad requires the use of a finger to swipe, point, click, manipulate the interface. This experiment does not directly prove or disprove our qualitative experiment, but it did allow us to consider how one interacts physically with a remote and what it may require. It gave us an opportunity to evaluate what we wanted for our prototype. We wanted to limit the amount of work of physical needs for completing a task that was generally meant to be simplified or easy.
Investigating users intuitive interaction with complex artefacts User expectation was evaluated in this study. Its goal was to assess the relationship between prior experience. non-conscious processing, speed, and correctness of these expectations. This was extremely relatable to the universal remote as generally most people have or will have to operate a remote at some time. We later found that all participants in our study have used a universal remote before. The study wanted to correlate that prior use is directly tied to the experiences they have had in the past with technologies. This was evaluated through task completion with multiple technologies. The experimenters found that familiarity with similar features on different technologies allowed for faster task completion and intuitiveness. However, intuitiveness was impacted by age. Those who were older had a more difficult time intuitively finding certain features because they had limited prior use. They also found that that appearance is more important than the location of the feature. People are stuck on the visual and will figure out the rest as it comes. This study was very important to the nature of our groups qualitative study. Its implications tied to the idea that those who had used specific technologies would have strong expectations as to how and why technologies, or in this case, remotes would operate. This meant we needed to consider how someones familiarity with a standard remote or iPad would directly relate to their experience and or feelings about accepting a new way to operate or control multiple inputs or devices. We had to asses what expectations people have about a universal remote. We needed to include any and all functions that users may expect or desire it to include. But we also needed to find a way to simplify or limit the amount of buttons in order to meet our goal. This study does support our findings. As you read on you will find that those who have used a standard remote are comfortable or familiar with it. Though they dislike the interface, their expectations are met when using a standard remote due to prolonged use. A large majority of participants have used the iPad before and this also helped them to draw conclusions on their feeling and likes/dislikes about operating it in the way of a universal remote. This study helped us to determine a small part of the future of our prototype because it enabled us to find and incorporate prior experience, perceptions, and desire of users. We know that appearance is important as long as it can function and provide users to meet their end game. It also allowed us to consider age as a factor for expectation due to prior experience or lack there of.
*Each member was responsible for writing their own research synopsis.
15
Results
After completing 30 questionnaires by way of focus groups and interviews we had strong results that allowed us to compile several trends and phenomena. This trends and phenomena also allowed us to determine what changes and or future changes we would make on our prototype.
Standard Remote
The standard remote was overwhelmingly (66%) chosen as the least favorable remote interface. Only 6% or participants found it to be the most favorable interface.However, it was signicantly described as comfortable. Participants felt that due to prolonged use of the standard remote the were comfortable or used to its use. Participants were very vocal as to why the felt or disliked the standard remote.;
Signicant Trends
Dislikes were signicant.: 1. Buttons: Buttons were described as: Button dislikes totaled 46% 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 2. Size ! ! 1. Bulky 2. I Loose It Too Small Too Hard to Read Too Many Convoluted Necessary Evil Overwhelming/Complicated
2. Positives : Comfortability ! 1. Participants signicantly described the standard remote as comfortable due: 1. Prolonged use 2. Dependence 3. Familiar/ Consistent/Expected
16
17
iPad
A vast majority of participants had used the iPad before. Forty percent of participants found the the iPad to be the most favorable interface due to simplicity or ease. Thirteen percent ranked the iPads interface to be the least favorable. Negative attributes on the iPad included unresponsiveness
Signicant Trends
1. Positive Comments ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1. Fun Touch-Screen 2. Fun to Interact with 3. Intuitive 4. Smart 5. Easy to Use 6. Less Complicated than I Expected 7. Simple 8. Easy to Jump Around 1. Participants had limited negative feedback: 1. Unresponsiveness of Buttons: i have to hit the buttons more than once 2. Uncomfortable - Too Modern/ Too New 3. Not Used to It
2. Negatives
18
19
Prototype
Our prototype received very similar feedback as the iPad did. Thirty-six percent of participants found the prototype to be the most favorable remote interface. Twenty percent of the participants found the prototype to be the least favorable. There was limited negative feedback. An outlying trend that occurred twice throughout the trials was the occurrence of participants disliking the need of a mouse to operate the prototype. Proctors made it clear that the interface was being tested. It was stated that the use of the mouse was not to be factored in when ranking the remotes; but rather the interface. Interface was dened in the packets given to each participant.
Signicant Trends
1. Positive Comments ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1. Simple 2. Easy 3. Not Complicated 4. Not a lot of unnecessary buttons 5. Does what is Needed 6. Savvy 7. Simplied 1. Participants had limited negative feedback: 1. Not as advanced and needs extra buttons 2. Not Used to It 3. I dont like using a mouse ** **Again, this was not a factor in the intended evaluation of the interface.
2. Negatives
20
21
Signicant Overlapping Trends

The iPad and the prototype had several overlapping trends. They were both signicantly described as simple and easy. When discussed with the proctors it was explained that the limited number of buttons, size of text, and general interface simplied the use of a remote. Negative feedback for the the prototype and the iPad included un-comfortability. This was attributed to the unfamiliarity on the technology and or interface. An overwhelming number of participants found the standard remote to be comfortable due to prolonged use. This implies that this use then make the unfamiliar uncomfortable or causes the user to get used to it.
Outlying Trends
There were only a few outlying trends found to have occurred. This was generally centered around the answers on the questionnaire did not match or correlate to their response of most and least favorable interface.
Signicant Suggestions
A signicant number of participants felt and or suggested that the prototype be used as an application meant for the iPad. A slightly less signicant number suggested the prototype be used for any touch-screen application which includes but is not limited to tablets, cell phones, and touch-screen panels. One suggestion that was mentioned on a single basis was that DVR options be included in the TV page. It was pointed out that several cable/satellite providers have taping or DVR options and this should be a consideration for the prototype.
Interpretation of Results
It was clear after the trials that the standard remote is the least favorable interface that was tested and is signicantly used among participants. While it is strongly disliked, it is also found to be a comfortable interface. Participants cited longtime use to have created a comfortablility with it despite the dislike for it overall. After listening to participants complaints we found it obvious that it is the buttons that participants found the most issue with. Size, number, organization, and actual need were all areas that were strongly questioned and or disliked. People use the standard remote because they are use to it, not because they like it. The iPad was found to be enjoyable by a large number of participants. It was seen to be intuitive or smart. The interactivity that the user is given with the interface was also greatly enjoyed. The ease of use or simplicity was also a major factor for participants. We interpret this ease or simplicity to be tied to the button organization and interactivity. However, participants found the iPad to be unresponsive at times. This meant they disliked when they had to tap a button more than once in order to complete a task or interaction. The prototype was surprisingly liked nearly as much as the iPad. It was only separated by one person as the most favorable interface. Words to describe the prototype were overwhelmingly connected to simplicity and ease of use. We interpret this to mean that the limited buttons, and the size of the buttons, as well as the organization supplement or amend the issues users found with the standard remote. It was our goal to simplify the universal remote, based on the ndings of the participants we interpret this to mean we have met our goal.
22
The Future of the Prototype

After speaking with the participants we nd that the prototype would be highly favorable on a touch-screen device. Because users so highly ranked the standard remote to be the least favorable interface and enjoyed interacting with the iPad as well as the prototype we believe it would be successful as an application. There are several applications that are currently being used as a universal remote on such devices. While our prototype is simplied in the way that it uses fewer buttons as well as keeps a consistent upper portion no matter the input being used, it still would have a lot of competition. Today Comcast uses an Xnity application that allows users to change channels and browse guides that include what is currently playing, what is on Demand, and what can be DVRd. We would like our prototype to function just as well and control multiple devices instead of just the television.
Conclusion
As a group we support our study and qualitative experiment of the universal remote as a signicant number of participants found that the prototype simplied or eased the use by comparison to the universal remote. Based on feedback from the participants they feel or dislike the standard universal remote because of button layout, organization, sheer number, and ability to read. Another word used to describe the universal remote was overwhelming. This supports our problem statement: ! ! Universal remote interface is overcomplicated and changes depending on the remote being used; they need to be updated to promote interactivity and simplied navigation
Most Favorable
36% 24%
Prototype iPad Standard Remote
Least Favorable
40% 20% 13% 67%
Prototype iPad Standard Remote
23
Trial Documents Proctor Script

Introduction:
Thank you for participating in this study. Today we will be discussing universal remotes. I will be providing examples of universal remotes. Before we start I will be handing our some questions for you to fill out. We will then go over your responses as a group. Please note that we are recording our session so that all observations and comments can be analyzed for the study. Thank you, we will begin
Interact with the Prototype:

In the middle of the table are three examples of remotes. Please interact with them. We are asking that you test our prototype by completing three tasks: 1. Change the input to DVD 2. Change the volume 3. Change to new input to ______ Once you have experienced each prototype, begin answering the questionnaire.
Focus Group Questions:

The top page of the questions is a consent form for the study. Once you have signed it, please begin answering the questions. Before you sign the consent form, please take this time to observe the remotes on the table. Think about which, why, and how you interact with them.
Group Discussion:
Now that everyone has filled out his or her questionnaires, we will begin the discussion. *Read through each question. Allow the subjects to provide their answers. Be sure to ask follow-up questions.
Wrap-Up
Again, I would like to thank you for your time. We appreciate any and all feedback your provided today. Have a wonderful____________.
24
Consent Form
Subject number: ______________ I consent to act as a subject in an experiment that will test my ability to complete a questionnaire and discuss my answers with the proctor and/or individuals participating in the focus group. I agree to let the resulting data be used for analysis and presentation subject to the conditions below: Only the course instructors will know the identity of subjects and their data, and ... Data presented to the class will be stripped of my identity, and... I retain the right to stop my role as subject at any time without question, and to have my data discarded.
Signature: __________________________________________________________________
Printed Name:___________________________________Date:________________________
25
Interact with the Prototype:

1. Change the input to DVD 2. Change the volume 3. Change to new input to the main TV input.
In the middle of the table are three examples of remotes. Please interact with them. We are asking that you test our prototype by completing five simple tasks:
*Once you have experienced each prototype, begin answering the questionnaire.
While you interact with the three devices think about:

1. Do You Like the Interface: a computer program designed to allow a computer user to interact easily with the computer typically by making choices from menus or groups of icons. 4. What do you like about the button layout? 3. What do you like about the menu items? 4. What do you like about the organization of function?
26
Interview Questionnaire
27
Focus Group Questionnaire
Proctor Observation Sheet
29
Works Cited
Lois Hanna Research:

Security, Privacy, and Personalization: Informing Next-Generation Interaction Concepts for Interactive TV By: Regina Bernhaupt, Michael M. Pirker, Astrid Weiss, David Wilnger, and Manfred Tscheligi From: ACM, Vol 9, No. 3, pages 17:1-17:33, 2011
Michael Ziller Research:

Hartson, H. R., & Castillo, J. C. (1998, May). Remote evaluation for post-deployment usability improvement. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces (pp. 22-29). ACM.HCII: HCI International Jamba, Lisa A., "Assessing the Usability of a Wearable Computer Interface with Split Button Conguration" (2011). UNF Theses and Dissertations. Paper 66.http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/66
Dragan Aleksovski Research:

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2000, Pages 439-441 Communications of the ACM January 2004/ Vol. 47, No 1 Communications of the ACM January 2004/ Vol. 47, No 1
Amanda Muha Research:

Blackler, Alethea, Vesna Popovic, Doug Mahar. Investigating users intuitive interaction with complex artefacts. Applied Ergonomics. Issue 41 (2012) : 72-92. PDF.
Dorner, Ralf, Mirja Lievonen, Duska Rosenberg, Swen Walkowski. Using a game controller for relaying deictic gestures in computer-mediated communication. Science Direct. Issue 69 (2011): 362-374. PDF.

Universal Remote

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Remote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C

USER INTERFACE: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE UNIVERSAL REMOTE

!!! ! ! ! Above Created By: Michael Ziller ! ! !

Above Created By Lois Hanna ! ! ! ! ! !

Above Created By Amanda Muha Coding completed by Michael Ziller

DVD & Blu-Ray Input

How can it improve the future of our prototype:

Signicant Overlapping Trends

The Future of the Prototype

Trial Documents Proctor Script

Interact with the Prototype:

Focus Group Questions:

Interact with the Prototype:

While you interact with the three devices think about:

Focus Group Questionnaire

Proctor Observation Sheet

Lois Hanna Research:

Michael Ziller Research:

Dragan Aleksovski Research:

Amanda Muha Research:

You might also like