=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1516/p8
|storemode=property
|title=Where Can I Add This Annotation?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1516/p8.pdf
|volume=Vol-1516
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/tvx/MeixnerK15
}}
==Where Can I Add This Annotation?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1516/p8.pdf
Where Can I Add This Annotation?
Britta Meixner Martin Kuchler
Chair of Distributed Information Systems University of Passau
University of Passau Passau
Passau mail.kuchler@googlemail.com
meixner@fim.uni-passau.de
ABSTRACT Bulterman & Hardman describe and explain “four different
Annotated interactive non-linear videos normally demand a authoring paradigms”, which are (please refer to [1]) for fur-
two-stage authoring process. The structure of the video is de- ther reading): structure-based, timeline-based, graph-based,
fined in the first step, where video scenes are arranged in a and script-based. Neither of the paradigms can be applied
scene graph. Additional information (annotations) are added to our workflow one by one. A switch from one editing
to the scenes in a second step. Therefore a timeline-based paradigm (scene graph editor, graph-based paradigm) to an-
editor has to be opened which enables the author to add im- other paradigm (annotation editor, timeline-based paradigm)
ages, videos, audio files, or text to a selected scene. User tests is necessary. So far, no solution is proposed how to link those
showed that users do not find the entry point to the annotation two paradigms.
editor currently placed as a button on a scene in the scene-
The user group which is usually working with our authoring
graph. This work proposes solutions for a better and more
tool, called SIVA Producer, has limited to no experience in
intuitive workflow in the tool to add annotations to scenes.
video editing, like physiotherapists, sports trainers, or teach-
ers. First usability tests in our project with more than thirty
Author Keywords users in more than five different settings showed, that the en-
Authoring; Hypervideo; Annotation; Scene Graph try point for adding annotations to the scenes is not found by
most of these users. This work tries to find solution on how to
overcome these weaknesses. The main contributions of this
ACM Classification Keywords work are: concepts for the creation of an entry-point to the
H.5.4 Information Interfaces and Presentation: Hyper- annotation editor based on the user behavior in a previously
text/Hypermedia conducted usability test and the evaluation of the concepts in
a questionnaire.
INTRODUCTION
Annotated interactive non-linear videos consist of video RELATED WORK
scenes which are linked with each other in a scene graph. Annotated interactive non-linear videos can be seen as a sub-
Each scene or the whole video can be extended with anno- set of hypervideos (for an example definition see Chambel et
tations (text, images, audio, or videos) which may add addi- al. [2]). These are often compared to interactive multimedia
tional information to the video contents. These videos are for presentations. We analyzed authoring tools from both areas.
example very well suited for sports or physiotherapy training They either use only videos which are linked with each other,
videos. They can furthermore be used for e-learning or tours or they treat each media element (image, video, text, audio,
through cities. The creation of this type of video comprises a etc.) equally and do not have the two-stage authoring process
series of steps in the authoring process. First, scenes need to and the same structures that we have. A detailed overview of
be created and linked with each other in a scene graph. Then related work can be found in [5].
the annotations have to be linked either to single scenes (local
annotation) or to the whole annotated interactive non-linear USER EVALUATION
video (global annotation). Global annotations are shown dur- Based on the knowledge that the button to add an annota-
ing the whole playback while local annotations are faded in tion to a scene in the scene graph is rarely found, we con-
and out during single scenes. This affords a two-stage au- ducted a user test combined with think-aloud protocols ([3])
thoring process, whereby the navigational structure of the an- and a screen capture software. Twenty test users (N = 20)
notated interactive non-linear video is created first. In the were split into two groups of ten users each (NA = NB =
second step, annotations are added. 10). The users all worked with a computer often to very often
and had average to very good knowledge about computers in
general. None of them worked with video annotations before
and had bad to very bad knowledge in this area accordingly.
The users were chosen for that reason, because the SIVA Pro-
ducer should be easy to use, especially for users with limited
to no experience in video editing. The test users were aged
between 20 and 60 (median 25 years). The test was used
to find out where the problems of comprehension are in the
3rd International Workshop on Interactive Content Consumption at TVX15, June 3rd, existing version of the SIVA Producer, therefore this small
2015, Brussels, Belgium. Copyright is held by the author(s)/owner(s).
number of test users is enough ([6]). Both groups got a short • Mark the scene with the mouse.
explanation about the SIVA Producer. Then they opened a
predefined project with a scene graph. Images were already • Open a pop-up with a drop-down box to select a scene.
loaded into the media repository but not added to the scenes. • Select scene in the annotation editor.
Group A had the task to first add a global annotation. After
that, they were asked to add a local annotation to a specified Except selecting the scene in the annotation editor, each of the
scene. Group B was asked to add an annotation to a scene ways to select the scene to be edited can be combined with
without adding a global annotation first. Both groups had to each of the ways to place the button to open the annotation
find the button with the pen positioned on a scene (see Figure editor:
1). • Entry in the menu (see Figure 3).
• Button in the toolbar (see Figure 4).
• Entry in the right-click menu of a scene (see Figure 2).
Different questions including control questions were asked
for each of the six solutions. Furthermore, pairs out of the
three solutions for each problem were opposed and the pref-
erence for one solution was asked for each pair. As a result
for the selection of the scene to which the annotation should
Figure 1. Button to add a local annotation to a scene. be added, the pop-up with the drop-down box was not con-
sidered as useful. Marking a scene with the mouse or select-
Group A eventually found the entries to open the editor for ing the scene after opening the annotation editor was regarded
the global annotations in the menu or the toolbar and was useful. Regarding the placement of the button, the entry in the
able to add the annotation to the whole video. Based on the menu was not regarded useful. In contrast, using the a right-
knowledge that annotations can be added this way, they tried click menu of the scene was considered useful compared to
adding the local annotation the same way. Nine out of ten each other placement of the button.
users were not able to open the annotation editor for local
annotations, because they did not find the button on the scene
in the scene graph. Group B also started searching in the
menu or the toolbar even without the knowledge of where to
add a global annotation. In this group eight out of ten users
did not find the button.
Taking a look at the search areas, two groups of users could
be recognized: those who did understand the connection be-
tween scenes and local annotations, and those who did not.
Some users tried more than one way of opening the editor.
Thereby we counted each attempt. Nine users did not real-
ize the connection between scenes and local annotations and
wanted to open the editor via the menu. Six users searched
for a button in the toolbar. Seven users recognized that a local
annotation has to be added to a scene and tried a right-click on
the scene and started searching in the appearing menu. Five Figure 2. Adding annotations by an entry in the right-click menu.
users tried a double-click on the scene. Only three users were
able to open the editor without help.
TOWARDS A SOLUTION
The user test showed us the areas where users are searching
for the button to add a local annotation to a scene. If the ed-
itor should be startable from the menu, a second step where
the scene is selected is needed. Based on the results of the
user test described in the previous section, we created a ques-
tionnaire [4] which was carried out by 76 persons. They were
Figure 3. Adding annotations via menu.
aged between 16 and 65 and mainly between 20 and 35 years
old. The questionnaire was finished and not clicked randomly
by 58 persons (tested with statistical methods). The question-
naire contained four parts: a short introduction, ways to select
a scene, possible button placements, and statistical data. Of-
fered ways to select the scene where the annotation should be Figure 4. Adding annotations via a button in the toolbar.
added were:
CONCLUSION
Based on the two-stage authoring process of interactive non-
linear videos, we faced the problem that authors were able to
create a scene graph in the SIVA Producer, but did not find
the entry point for opening the editor to add annotations to a
single scene. In this work, we have proposed three methods
of selecting a scene to which an annotation should be added
as well as three placements of the button which opens the
annotation editor. The most suitable solution according to
the conducted questionnaire was an entry in the right-click
menu of the scene to which the annotation should be added.
Our future work includes the implementation of the proposed
solution as well as further user tests to confirm the results of
the questionnaire.
REFERENCES
1. Bulterman, D. C. A., and Hardman, L. Structured
multimedia authoring. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput.
Commun. Appl. 1, 1 (Feb. 2005), 89–109.
2. Chambel, T., Zahn, C., and Finke, M. Hypervideo design
and support for contextualized learning. In Advanced
Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings. IEEE
International Conference on (Aug 2004), 345–349.
3. Ericsson, K. A., and A., S. H. How to study thinking in
everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with
descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture,
and Activity 5, 3 (1998), 178186.
4. Gillham, B. Developing a Questionnaire. Real world
research. Bloomsbury Academic, 2000.
5. Meixner, B. Annotated Interactive Non-linear Video -
Software Suite, Download and Cache Management. PhD
thesis, Universität Passau, 2014.
6. Nielsen, J. How many test users in a usability study?
Website, June 2012. (Nielsen Norman Group). Retrieved
May 15, 2014, from
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/.