Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Comparative Study of Remote Controls For Digital TV Receivers
A Comparative Study of Remote Controls For Digital TV Receivers
net/publication/220724842
CITATIONS READS
7 1,927
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathan Freeman on 01 June 2014.
Abstract. This study was designed to explore the usability of three remote con-
trols that operate a specific digital set top box (Logik LDR V3) amongst con-
sumers 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 sen-
sory, physical or cognitive impairment. Using a repeated measures design, par-
ticipants 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 rec-
ommendations (V1.3) for digital terrestrial television (section 5: remote con-
trols) better meet the needs of consumers likely to face difficulty using digital
television equipment.
Keywords: usability, user interface, digital television, digital set top box, re-
mote 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
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 con-
trol 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 con-
trol 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 attrac-
tiveness 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 re-
ceived a small payment for their participation.
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 (irrespec-
tive 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) ap-
proached 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 differ-
ent 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 re-
lied 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
Acknowledgements
This work was commissioned by the UK Government Department for Business En-
terprise and Regulatory Reform. i2 media research limited at Goldsmiths would like
to thank the following organisations for their assistance with recruitment of partici-
pants 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 but-
ton 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 Of-
com’s Advisory Committee on Older and Disabled people (ACOD) (2007)
7. Freeman, J., Lessiter, J., Pugh, K.: Equipment needs of consumers facing the most diffi-
culty 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 fac-
ing 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 up-
dated 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 in-
teraction. 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)