=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1716/WSICC_2016_paper_1
|storemode=property
|title=From Single Screen to Dual Screen - A Design Study for a User-Controlled Hypervideo-Based Physiotherapy Training
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1716/WSICC_2016_paper_1.pdf
|volume=Vol-1716
|authors=Britta Meixner,Christian Handschigl,Stefan John,Michael Granitzer
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/tvx/MeixnerHJG16
}}
==From Single Screen to Dual Screen - A Design Study for a User-Controlled Hypervideo-Based Physiotherapy Training==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1716/WSICC_2016_paper_1.pdf
From Single Screen to Dual Screen - a Design Study for a
User-Controlled Hypervideo-Based Physiotherapy Training
Britta Meixner1,2 , Christian Handschigl1 , Stefan John1 , Michael Granitzer1
1 University of Passau, Innstrasse 43, 94032 Passau, Germany
2 FX Palo Alto Laboratory, 3174 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
2 meixner@fxpal.com, 1 firstname.lastname@uni-passau.de
ABSTRACT by Meixner et al. [13] uses a laptop or tablet with a stand
Hypervideo based physiotherapy trainings bear an opportu- to show the exercises as well as to control the flow of the
nity to support patients in continuing their training after being hypervideo. In this setting it is difficult to keep a correct
released from a rehabilitation clinic. Many exercises require posture on the gymnastics mat or training device, have eye
the patient to sit on the floor or a gymnastic ball, lie on a contact to the screen and position the playback device within
gymnastics mat, or do the exercises in other postures. Using a reach for interaction at the same time. The following problems
laptop or tablet with a stand to show the exercises is more help- arise:
ful than for example just having some drawings on a leaflet.
1. Positioning of the screen so that it could be easily watched
However, it may lead to incorrect execution of the exercises
during the execution of the exercises without moving the
while maintaining eye contact with the screen or require the
upper body or head (which can lead to a wrong execution
user to get up and select the next exercise if the devices is
of the exercise and a lower training effect) is difficult and
positioned for a better view. A dual screen application, where
sometimes not possible at all.
contents are shown on a TV screen and the flow of the video
2. Controlling the flow of the hypervideo requires a movement
can be controlled from a mobile second device, allows patients
towards the device, so even if the exercises were executed
to keep their correct posture and the same time view and se-
lying on the floor, it requires the user to get up, interact with
lect contents. In this paper we propose first studies for user
the hypervideo and then lie down again, which may be very
interface designs for such apps. Initial paper prototypes are
challenging with certain conditions.
discussed and refined in two focus groups. The results are
then presented to a broader range of users in a survey. Three Summarizing, in a single screen situation the playback device
prototypes for the mobile app and one prototype for the TV is either positioned well for watching the videos or for interact-
are identified for future user tests. ing with the hypervideo; both not being possible at the same
time.
ACM Classification Keywords
Dual screen applications with a TV and a touch screen for
H.5.2. Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g. HCI):
remote control offer a solution. However, up to now, the design
User Interfaces
and interaction patterns of such dual screen applications in
the area of hypervideo-based physiotherapy training are not
Author Keywords clear. Moving the main video to the TV allows a different
Hypervideo; Dual Screen; Navigation; Training focus and a new arrangement of the elements/components of
a mobile app. Concretely, the contributions of this paper are
INTRODUCTION the following: We propose interface designs for the TV screen
During a hypervideo-based physiotherapy training, the user and the mobile app. These are improved step-by-step during a
has to lie, sit, or stand on a gymnastics mat or training device. design process which includes paper prototyping, focus groups
The correct posture during the execution of the exercises is with experts for hypervideo-based physiotherapy training and
very important to ensure the desired training and healing effect a survey.
and not to strain or wrongly train certain muscles. During the
training, the patient needs to be able to maintain eye contact This paper is structured as follows: Firstly, we give an
with the screen and to interact with the video via keyboard, overview of related work. Then we present context and scope
mouse, or touchscreen. The single screen concept described of our application. The design process of the application is
described thereafter. A discussion and conclusion section
follows.
RELATED WORK
Related work exists in several areas, namely the areas of hyper-
video, second or dual screen applications, and rehabilitation
4th International Workshop on Interactive Content Consumption at TVX’16, June 22,
2016, Chicago, IL, USA training. All areas provide insights for the implementation of
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
a dual screen concept for user-controlled hypervideo-based control which allows the user to select videos, navigate in lin-
physiotherapy training. ear videos, or interact with videos (like pan and zoom). None
of the applications is tailored to physical training scenarios.
Hypervideo
Klynt [11], the SIVA Player [13], and the Ambulant Open The work of Fleury et al. [8] deals with the presentation of
SMIL Player [5] provide functions and controls relevant for the announcements on the first and/or second screen. New con-
playback of hypervideo trainings. However, they are limited tents on the second screen should be announced by “very
to single screen presentations and not capable of splitting the discreet prompting, e.g. an icon in the corner of the primary
contents on two screens. Klynt and the Ambulant Open SMIL TV screen”. Regarding the question, if the contents of the
Player are furthermore not suited to the needs of physical first screen should also be shown on the second screen, “par-
trainings. Bibiloni et al. present a hypervideo platform which ticipants wanted to be able to control if the show should be
can be used to “represent augmented reality on Interactive TVs” running on the secondary device, in sync with the content
[4]. Their concept of hypervideo is limited to an “interactive broadcast on the TV screen” [8]. Neate et al. studied sec-
video stream in which the user is able to interact with the ond screen companion content [14]. They investigated the
content through hyperlinks, leading to non-linear navigation, introduction of content on a secondary device and “how much
searching, sequence skipping, etc.” [4]. They are “enabling it detracts from, or enhances, the show the user is currently
a second-screen device to connect to the application in order engaged with”. They found out that a notification by sound
to get the additional information in a handheld device and results in a quicker reaction than other stimuli. They further-
using the capability of HbbTV of representing the broadcast more recommend notifications on the main screen if compan-
video.” [4]. This work provides hints on the implementation ion content is available for longer than just a few seconds, so
of a mobile app with HTML5, but does not deal with the the viewer can chose when to watch the content [14].
requirements of training settings.
Rehabilitation Training
Second/Dual Screen Applications
Rossol et al. describe a virtual reality rehabilitation as an
Different studies have been made in the area of second/dual “effective way to supplement patient rehabilitation” [19]. They
screen applications in the past few years. Many of them com- “propose a design for a flexible, low-cost rehabilitation system
bine a TV screen with a second screen application showing that uses virtual reality training and games to engage patients
information about contents on the first screen (TV). Cesar et in effective instruction on the use of powered wheelchairs”
al. identify “four major usages of the secondary screen in [19]. They use Bayesian networks in their system to support a
an interactive digital television environment: control, enrich,
self-adjusting adaptive training. This system is implemented
share, and transfer television content” [6]. Beeson et al. [3],
for the use with wheelchairs, and cannot be used for other
Cruickshank et al. [7], and Leyssen et al. [12] describe sec-
trainings. Octavia et al. address user diversity by an adap-
ond screen applications which can be used as remote controls.
tive rehabilitation training for multiple sclerosis patients [15].
Beeson et al. [3] provide several play-lists with video streams They automatically adjust the difficulty levels of the training
that can also be started on the first screen via a set top box. exercises. This results in less boredom and more challenges
Cruickshank et al. [7] show timelines for several TV channels making the training more enjoyable and fun. However, their
which can be extended to provide information about television system requires special equipment and can only be used for
shows. Information about a show can be viewed on the second the described training. In their study to enhance rehabilitation
screen without hiding contents on the first screen. Leyssen et after falls at home, Uzor and Baille show that their “visualiza-
al. [12] describe concepts for adding additional information tions and games were able to overcome the major limitations
to certain items in the video. These can be viewed either on
of standard care, and that they were usable and acceptable to
the main or on the second screen. All three applications use a
the end users” [25]. They “conclude that the visualizations
single linear video and do not provide controls for hypervideo
and games encouraged the participants to do the exercises at
navigation. Leyssen et al. [12] deal with a different underly- the right pace”. Furthermore, the users “responded that they
ing structure of additional information, but their application would prefer to use the visualizations and games to the instruc-
provides a separation between main video controls and ad- tional booklet” after a user test. Reasons for this response were
ditional information which can be applied to our concept as a “potential enjoyable experience offered by the games” and
well. Wald et al. [26] describe a second screen extension of an “advice and dynamic feedback offered by the visualizations”
e-learning application. This application allows the viewers to [25]. While [19] and [25] propose training systems and prove
add additional information and thumbnails to video fragments. their usability and acceptance by the end users, none of the
Besides live synchronization, other functions which go be-
systems is a second screen app or uses hypervideos.
yond the functionality of our concept are described. However,
Wald et al. [26] only describe a linear video as an underlying Spina et al. describe a “training system based on a smartphone
structure. Barkhuus et al. examine “second-screen interaction that integrates in clinical routines and serves as a tool for
at a dance and music performance” [2]. The performance therapist and patient” [21]. The smartphone is strapped to the
is streamed to tablets in real-time, the “video stream on the joint that is moved and only the “build-in inertial sensors were
tablet is navigational and enables audience members to pan used to monitor exercise execution and providing acoustic
and zoom in the real-time video feed” [2]. The second screen feedback on exercise performance and exercise errors” [21]. It
applications described so far mainly provide additional infor- can be operated in teach-mode to generate an exercise model,
mation to a main video stream or act as some kind of remote and train-mode that provides feedback to the user. The system
gives no visual feedback. The patient needs to know how to
execute the exercises and only gets feedback whether they are
performed correctly. The movement of whole body parts is
needed for the system to work properly. Exercises where only
single muscles are tensed or relaxed do not result in feedback
from this system. Tang et al. propose a similar system which
can also correct motion sequences, but instead of a smartphone
strapped to a joint, several cameras are used. The prototype
“guides people through pre-recorded physiotherapy exercises
using real-time visual guides and multi-camera views” [23].
Thereby, aspects of corrective guidance are addressed. The
exercises are visualized by geometrical shapes in the different
available camera views. This system requires the installation
of cameras to provide enough data for motion correction and
Figure 1. Screenshot of the single screen player as described by Meixner
guidance. Like in the system described by Spina et al., whole et al. [13, 24]
body parts need to be moved for the system to work properly.
can decide if she/he wants to repeat the exercise after a set
CONTEXT AND SCOPE
of executions or proceed with the next exercise. Thus, the
The two most important concepts of hypervideos are a non-
training can be adjusted to the individual fitness and training
linear structure of scenes and annotations that are associated
progress. For all video sequences of the theoretical as well
to the video scenes. The interlinking of scenes results in a
as the practical part, additional information like schematic
graph structure. This graph structure allows the viewers to
drawings, optional relaxation exercises, and further reading
select an individual path through the hypervideo. They can
materials is provided. The videos are furthermore provided
repeat video scenes or skip information that is already known.
together with a table of contents and a search function to jump
Furthermore, each scene may be enhanced with additional
directly to a certain part of the training.
information which can be invoked by the viewer if desired.
Depending on the type of additional information (image, text, The target group of our software are cancer patients who had
audio, video, links), different interactions are possible. surgery after a prostate-cancer diagnosis. The age group that
usually gets this type of cancer is 45 years and above. This
The playback of such videos requires special players which
leads to a further challenge for hypervideo-based physiother-
are capable of providing navigational elements like selection
apy trainings, because this user group has a mixed level of
panels for follow-up scenes, a table of contents, or a search
technical experience in the usage of touch screens and apps
function. Furthermore, areas for displaying additional informa-
on smartphones. Furthermore, first problems with eyesight
tion are necessary. Figure 1 shows an example user interface
appear. This has to be taken into account when designing
of a hypervideo player as described by Tonndorf et al. [24].
the user interface to control the hypervideo and leads to the
The user interface provides navigational elements at the top
following questions:
in addition to standard controls in the bottom pane below the
video. Navigational elements include an entry point to the • Which control elements are necessary to be able to control
table of contents (1), a button to jump to the previous scene an individual training in a way that does not interrupt the
(2), the title of the currently displayed scene (3), a button to training more than necessary?
jump to the next scene (or to a selection panel) (4), a search • How should the multimedia elements of the training be split
button (5), and a button for the full-screen mode (6). A foldout up between TV and touch screen?
panel on the right shows additional information (8). In the • What are requirements for a mobile app which is capable
example in Figure 1, an additional video (7) and two image of controlling the TV screen in an individual training?
galleries (9) are provided. The additional video provides stan- • How should elements and function-buttons on a mobile app
dard controls and can be displayed in full-screen mode. The be arranged?
image galleries can also be viewed in full-screen mode with
one enlarged image at a time, and an overview of the other INTERFACE DESIGN
images. We designed the user interface of the mobile app in an iterative
process. The goal was to provide all necessary buttons in an
The videos used for the hypervideo-based physiotherapy train-
easy to use screen layout. We iterated the design of the mobile
ing usually have a theoretical/introductory and a practical part
app concept in the following three steps which resulted in
(as described by Tonndorf et al. [24]). Information about the
three prototypes which were then implemented:
disease as well as important and generally applicable infor-
mation for the execution of the exercises are provided in the 1. Initial high-fidelity paper prototypes with screen de-
theoretical/introductory part. The practical part provides dif- signs guided by related work, existing apps, and require-
ferent training programs for beginners and more advanced ments of hypervideos.
participants. These trainings consist of video sequences which 2. Pluralistic Walk-through [17, p. 514] in 1st and 2nd
explain the proper execution of the exercises. An introduction focus group meeting (2nd focus group meeting with
and a participation video exist for each exercise. The viewer refined and improved high-fidelity paper prototypes).
Figure 2. Variation of the original player without the media preview and
large control buttons.
Figure 4. Tab concept: video tab with video view and controls (top) and
additional information tab (bottom)
for tablet. The video view on the touch screen was assumed to
Figure 3. Split screen for video and additional information. be synchronized with the video on the TV screen.
1st Focus Group Meeting
3. A survey with selected high-fidelity paper prototypes. The initial high-fidelity paper prototypes described in the pre-
vious section, TV1-TV4 and TS1-TS4 were refined and opti-
Initial High-fidelity Paper Prototypes mized with a focus group.
For the creation of the high-fidelity paper prototypes [20], Participants
we analyzed related work to derive already evaluated usage Participants were five experts (N = 5) who had knowledge
concepts. We also studied existing Chromecast apps with a in hypervideo design and dual screen concepts. All of them
focus on video, like LocalCast for Chromecast/DLNA [16]. use smartphones and tablets in daily live. The five experts
In addition, we applied the Google Chromecast user experi- were from different disciplines: two media and communica-
ence guidelines [10] and results of previous tests from our lab. tion scientists, a web developer, a programmer, and a legal
Furthermore, physiotherapists gave advice for the creation of expert. At least three of them had experience in experiments
the initial high-fidelity paper prototypes. Based on the hyper- with the target user group and participated as observers in
video player described in [13], we created four screen dummy usability studies with the target user group in the past. The
variants for the TV and the touch screen (TS) respectively: experts furthermore had knowledge from a 1-year user study
• TV1 (baseline): The original player used in our first study with the target user group using a single screen application.
(Figure 1). All control elements and a sidebar for additional The analyzed user comments from the previous study were
information are shown. Although this variant is contradic- taken into account. Furthermore, physiotherapists had pro-
tory to [10], because the guidelines state that no control vided questions and hints that should be kept in mind by the
buttons should be displayed on the TV screen, we kept it focus group during their meetings. Already known issues and
for completeness. difficulties in the usage of training apps were discussed and the
• TV2: TV1 without control elements to comply with the results integrated into the paper prototypes. Having prostate
guidelines in [10]. The TV screen still contains the ad- cancer patients in the focus groups was desirable, but finding
ditional information, the progress bar and the title of the a patient with sufficient knowledge about hypervideo and dual
currently displayed scene. screen concepts was not possible at that time.
• TV3: TV2 without additional information. Only the video
Procedure/Data Collection
(centered), the progress bar (bottom) and the title of the
current scene (top) are displayed. The first focus group meeting [18], was carried out as a Plu-
• TV4: Solely the video is shown, “standard TV watching”. ralistic Walkthrough [17, p. 514] with more open discussions
in the group. Each participant got her/his own printout of
Each of the touch screen variants (TS1-TS4) as described in all high-fidelity paper prototypes of the mobile app described
Table 1 was designed in four different forms: landscape and in Section ’Initial High-fidelity Paper Prototypes’. The TV
portrait mode for smartphone, and landscape and portrait mode prototypes were shown in a presentation on a large monitor.
Table 1. Prototypes and their usage in the different steps of the user-centered design process
Name Description Used in
initial 1st exp. 2nd exp. survey user
proto- meeting meeting test
type
The original player described in [13] extended by a concept
TS1 3 3
for portrait mode. (baseline) (Figure 1)
TS1 without a video view. The focus lies on displaying addi-
TS2 3 3
tional information. (Figure 2)
Both, a video view and additional information are shown. A
TS3 split screen is used in landscape mode. Two tabs are used in 3 3
portrait mode.
Video and additional information are arranged like in TS3.
TS4 3 3
The video view is substituted by large centered video controls.
“Split view” uses a split of the area into two halves, one half
shows the video view and the video controls, the other con-
TS5 3 3 3
tains the additional information. Each part has a different
background color. (Figure 3)
“Tab concept” with a player view combined with large buttons
TS6 and a separation between video and additional information by 3 3 3
two tabs. (Figure 4)
“Drawer concept” with different background colors for the
TS7 video view/large video controls and the additional information. 3 3 3
(Figure 5)
TS8 TS7 without the video preview. (Figure 6) 3
Panel with the table of contents and controls that are not
TS_TOC 3 3 3
necessary for primary navigation. (Figure 7 (left))
TS_CB Control buttons to select the next scene. (Figure 7 (right)) 3 3 3
The following questions were given to the participants to start enlarged compared to the version described in [13] to make
and guide the discussion: Is the allocation of contents between them easier to touch. The table of contents and the search
TV and touch screen useful? Is the arrangement of the ele- function should be aggregated on an option panel which can
ments within a screen appropriate? Are all necessary control be folded out from the left. Scroll bars (if necessary) should
elements available or is anything missing? Is the realization of only be available for one direction (left-right OR top-bottom).
the selection panels for choosing the next scene clear? Which The experts agreed that a clear demarcation (by background
variant (possibly with modifications) seems to be the most color or otherwise) between video control and additional infor-
practical? mation is necessary. Therefore, three options were considered
useful: a tab concept with a separation of video controls and
additional information, a split view where video and additional
Analysis and Results
information are always visible, and a “drawer” concept as
The focus group meeting revealed the following findings re-
seen in the Spotify app [22]. The latter adapts the screen space
garding the TV screen: A mirroring of the touch screen to the
to the currently focused elements, video controls or additional
TV screen (TS1 and TV1) is not considered useful, because
information, but does not hide one area completely.
many unnecessary elements are displayed on the TV screen
where no interaction with the contents can be carried out. In- The findings of the first focus group meeting were integrated
stead of showing the additional information on the TV screen, into the existing high-fidelity paper prototypes. Furthermore,
their availability in a scene should be announced to encourage new high-fidelity paper prototypes were created for new con-
the user to take a look at them on the touch screen. With cepts not incorporated in the first high-fidelity prototypes. This
respect to the announcement of additional information, no led to the new variants TS5-TS8 as described in Table 1.
consensus could be found, so these questions were addressed
in our survey (see Section ’Survey’). The prototypes of the first focus group meeting also did not pro-
vide concepts for the table of contents and the selection panel
Regarding the touch screen, the experts specified that at least a for the follow up scene at a fork in the video flow. Accord-
small video view and the timeline are necessary for orientation ingly, the two high-fidelity prototypes TS_TOC and TS_CB as
and to jump forward and backward without looking back and
forth between the devices. The control elements should be
Figure 5. “Drawer” concept: video part with video view and controls Figure 7. Table of contents and search panel (left) and screen with con-
(left) and additional information part (right) trol buttons (right)
2nd Focus Group Meeting
Open questions from the first focus group meeting were dis-
cussed in a second session. All former findings were integrated
into the high-fidelity paper prototypes for further analysis.
Participants
A second session with the same participants using the same
methodology as in the first meeting was conducted to find a
smaller set of high-fidelity prototypes that could be presented
to a larger group of people in a survey.
Procedure/Data Collection
The improved and new high-fidelity paper prototypes de-
scribed in the previous section (TS1-TS8, TS_TOC, and
TS_CB) were handed out to the participants. This time only
the smartphone versions were used, because the tablet versions
did not lead to any additional findings in the first focus group
meeting. Besides, presentation on smartphones tends to be
harder due to their smaller screen size. Each prototype TS1-
TS8 was discussed separately and either valued as unsuitable
or put aside for further discussion. Furthermore, prototypes
TS_TOC and TS_CB were verified to be consistent with the
rest of the application and provide all necessary functions.
Points to discuss were identified.
Figure 6. “Drawer” concept without a media preview and large control
buttons.
Analysis and Results
Three screen concepts for the display of control elements and
additional information (TS5 (Figure 3), TS6 (Figure 4), and
TS7 (Figure 5)), as well as two other screens (selection of next
described in Table 1 were added for discussion in the second
scene (TS_CB (Figure 7, right)), table of contents(TS_TOC)
focus group meeting.
(Figure 7, left)) were selected by the group for further eval-
Variant TS1 was kept as a reference, TS2-TS4 had the same uation and the high-fidelity paper prototypes were adapted
concepts as in the first draft but with a clearer appearance. to the results of the discussion. Some functions provided in
They were improved with the findings from the first focus the single screen player were considered not necessary (like
group meeting. For example, the buttons not necessary for additional information displayed as overlay on the main video,
primary navigation and the table of contents were grouped hotspots). Buttons for selecting the next scene should be posi-
into a panel. tioned in the video control part. No separate volume control
is needed for additional information videos. A search form mode (49 participants) compared to the “drawer” concept (24
should be available in the table of contents to allow fast access participants).
to the search function.
In addition to a preference for one version, the survey revealed
Figures 3-7 show the resulting high-fidelity prototypes chosen the following findings for the prototypes for the user test:
by the focus group, namely TS5, TS6, TS7, TS_TOC, and
TS_CB. Although the TV screen (TV3) was the declared pref- • Getting information on a secondary device is the most fre-
quent way of interaction with content on a TV screen.
erence for the TV screen, the experts were indecisive whether
• A one handed usage of the secondary device with a thumb
additional information on the TV might be useful. This ques-
is desired (esp. for smartphones).
tion was also covered by our survey.
• The stand of the cover is used rarely, therefore, no prefer-
Survey
ence of landscape mode for tablets can be derived.
• The volume on the TV screen should be controlled by the
In order to get the opinion of a wider range of users with
hardware volume buttons on the secondary device.
different knowledge levels in the usage of smartphones and
• Turning off the screen of the secondary device after a time
in the execution of physiotherapy trainings, we conducted
of inactivity is considered important.
a survey with 164 participants. Our survey consisted of six
• Buttons for settings and table of contents need a separation.
parts. The first part contained questions about the device us-
• Buttons for screen transfer and navigation in the video struc-
age (which devices are used?), the transition of content to the
ture (jump for-/backward between videos) are clear.
TV, and an active participation in TV shows. The second part
• It should be possible to pause and start the video by touching
evaluated the usage of devices (how are they used?), the com-
the video area or with a button below the video
prehensibility of certain button designs, as well as standard
• Showing the title of the current video in the header, the
interactions performed in commonly used apps. The third part
timeline in the footer, and an as large as possible display of
asked questions about the importance of showing contents on
the video are considered important for the TV screen.
the TV screen. The fourth part contained questions on when
• No clear statement can be made regarding the display of
and how to watch additional information. Part five examined
additional information on the right side of the TV or the
the user friendliness, the appropriateness of button sizes, the
indication of new additional information on the TV screen.
arrangement of buttons, the separation of video and additional
• Additional information is mainly watched at the end of a
information, and the obviousness of additional information
scene and should be shown enlarged on the TV screen.
for the variants evaluated as usable in the second focus group
• The button sizes of all prototypes are sufficient.
meeting. Thereby, animated high-fidelity paper prototypes
• The arrangement of elements and the separation of video
were used for the tab and the “drawer” concept. The questions
and additional information is considered best for the tab
in the survey were asked for each variant, and both, landscape
concept.
and portrait mode. To be able to verify the answers, an addi-
• Different ways to close the table of contents are desired.
tional question about the overall preferred variant was asked.
• The imprint and data privacy statement should be placed at
The sixth part of the survey included more common questions
the end of the table of contents.
about the table of contents and the privacy statement.
The tab concept was evaluated best, the split screen was pre-
Participants
ferred by a smaller number of participants. The dynamic
The survey was answered by 164 participants (121 male, 41 view of the “drawer” concept, however, is hard to show in
female, 2 NA). They were between 17 and 78 years old (M = a survey despite the usage of animations. Furthermore it is
34.28, SD = 17.46). The educational background was mixed not very well known from desktop computers. Accordingly,
and included all levels of education. All but one participants we decided to implement all three variants for a user test in
had at least a school graduation, 66 of them had a university future work. Our prototypical mobile application will use
degree, and 31 had completed a vocational training. three hardware components: a standard TV with an HDMI
Recruitment/Data Collection connector, a Chromecast [9] and an Android smartphone. The
The participants were recruited through members of the project Chromecast supports the transmission of HTML5 contents and
via social media and email. Furthermore, patients at the reha- enables us to display media on the TV. Furthermore, we use
bilitation clinic and participants of former tests were asked to PhoneGap [1] to create the prototypical apps from the player
participate. implemented in HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript.
Analysis and Results DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The survey tried to find a preference for one of the prototypes. This paper proposes a screen designs for a dual screen concept
Therefore, each variant (see Figures 3 to 5) was presented for a user-controlled hypervideo-based physiotherapy training.
to the participants in portrait and landscape mode. The tab We introduce designs for both parts, the TV screen and the
concept was preferred by most of the participants (portrait mobile second screen app. Smaller devices like smart watches
mode: 93 participants, landscape mode: 92 participants). The were not considered in this work. Our design process consisted
split screen and the “drawer” concept were preferred by about of several steps. The initial high-fidelity paper prototypes were
the same number of participants in portrait mode (split screen: created in the beginning to have a basis for discussion in the
34 participants, “drawer” concept: 38 participants). A pref- focus group meetings. While it was not possible to recruit
erence for the split screen can be recognized in landscape experts from the target user group, we had experts in the
meeting that did user tests and long term studies with the target Environments, Manfred Tscheligi, Marianna Obrist, and
user group before and knew their behavior as well as potential Artur Lugmayr (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer
issues. We tried to get a wider opinion on an improved subset Science, Vol. 5066. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 168–177.
of the initial prototypes using a survey with 164 participants. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69478-6_22
The survey revealed that a one handed usage of the secondary
7. Leon Cruickshank, Emmanuel Tsekleves, Roger Witham,
device with a thumb is desired (esp. for smartphones) and the
Annette Hill, and Kaoruko Kondo. 2007. Making
volume on the TV screen should be controlled by the hardware
Interactive TV Easier to Use: Interface Design for a
volume buttons on the secondary device. Furthermore, it
Second Screen Approach. The Design Journal 10, 3
should be possible to pause and start the video by touching the
(2007).
video area or with a button below the video. On the TV screen,
the title of the current video should be shown in the header 8. A. Fleury, J. S. Pedersen, M. Baunstrup, and L. B. Larsen.
and the timeline in the footer. An as large as possible display 2012. Interactive TV: Interaction and Control in
of the video is considered important. Additional information Second-screen TV Consumption.. In Adjunct proceedings
is mainly watched at the end of a scene and should be shown of the 10th European interactive TV conference
enlarged on the TV screen. The tab concept was considered (EuroITV). 104–107. http://research.ijcaonline.org/
best regarding the arrangement of elements and the separation volume64/number22/pxc3885764.pdf
of video and additional information. In addition to the focus
9. Google Inc. 2015a. Chromecast. Website,
groups and the survey, we are going to test three selected
https://www.google.com/chromecast/tv/. (2015).
prototypes from the survey in a user study with patients of
(accessed April 27, 2015).
a rehabilitation clinic to identify usability problems during
a training session where the user has to do the exercises in 10. Google Inc. 2015b. User Experience with Google Cast.
different positions. Website,
https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/ux_guidelines.
REFERENCES (2015). (Last updated April 17, 2015, accessed April 27,
1. Adobe Systems Inc. 2015. PhoneGap: Easily create apps 2015).
using the web technologies you know and love: HTML,
CSS, and JavaScript. Website, http://phonegap.com/. 11. Honkytonk Films. 2015. Klynt. Website,
http://www.klynt.net/. (2015). (accessed April 27, 2015).
(2015). (accessed April 27, 2015).
2. Louise Barkhuus, Arvid Engström, and Goranka Zoric. 12. Mieke Leyssen, Myriam Traub, Lynda Hardman, and
2014. Watching the Footwork: Second Screen Interaction Jacco van Ossenbruggen. 2012. LinkedTV user interfaces
at a Dance and Music Performance. In Proceedings of the sketch. Deliverable D3.3. CWI.
32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in http://www.slideshare.net/linkedtv/
Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, linked-tv-d33linkedtvuserinterfacessketch
USA, 1305–1314. DOI: 13. Britta Meixner, Katrin Tonndorf, Stefan John, Christian
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557369 Handschigl, Kai Hofmann, and Michael Granitzer. 2014.
3. Charles W. Beeson, Earl J. Bonovich, Shannon A Kallin, A Multimedia Help System for a Medical Scenario in a
and Erin K. Nelson. 2013. Method and System for Using Rehabilitation Clinic. In Proceedings of the 14th
a Second Screen Device to Tune a Set Top Box to International Conference on Knowledge Technologies
Display Content Playing on the Second Screen Device. and Data-driven Business (i-KNOW ’14). ACM, New
Patent US 2013/0104160 A1. (2013). York, NY, USA, Article 25, 8 pages. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2637748.2638429
4. Toni Bibiloni, Miquel Mascaro, Pere Palmer, and Antoni
Oliver. 2015. A Second-Screen Meets Hypervideo, 14. Timothy Neate, Matt Jones, and Michael Evans. 2015.
Delivering Content Through HbbTV. In Proceedings of Mediating Attention for Second Screen Companion
the ACM International Conference on Interactive Content. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM
Experiences for TV and Online Video (TVX ’15). ACM, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
New York, NY, USA, 131–136. DOI: (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3103–3106. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2745197.2755513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702278
5. Dick C. A. Bulterman, Jack Jansen, Kleanthis 15. Johanna Renny Octavia, Karin Coninx, and Peter Feys.
Kleanthous, Kees Blom, and Daniel Benden. 2004. 2012. As I Am Not You: Accommodating User Diversity
Ambulant: A Fast, Multi-platform Open Source SMIL Through Adaptive Rehabilitation Training for Multiple
Player. In Proc. of the 12th Annual ACM Intl. Conf. on Sclerosis Patients. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian
Multimedia (MULTIMEDIA ’04). ACM, New York, NY, Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI ’12).
USA, 492–495. DOI: ACM, New York, NY, USA, 424–432. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1027527.1027646 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414603
6. Pablo Cesar, Dick C. A. Bulterman, and A.J. Jansen. 16. Stefan Pledl. 2015. LocalCast for Chromecast/DLNA.
2008. Usages of the Secondary Screen in an Interactive Website, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
Television Environment: Control, Enrich, Share, and id=de.stefanpledl.localcast&hl=en. (2015). (accessed
Transfer Television Content. In Changing Television April 27, 2015).
17. J. Preece, H. Sharp, and Y. Rogers. 2015. Interaction 23. Richard Tang, Xing-Dong Yang, Scott Bateman, Joaquim
Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley. Jorge, and Anthony Tang. 2015. Physio@Home:
18. D. Remenyi. 2012. Field Methods for Academic Research: Exploring Visual Guidance and Feedback Techniques for
Interviews, Focus Groups and Questionnaires 3rd Physiotherapy Exercises. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Edition:. Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited. Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY,
19. Nathaniel Rossol, Irene Cheng, Walter F. Bischof, and USA, 4123–4132. DOI:
Anup Basu. 2011. A Framework for Adaptive Training http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702401
and Games in Virtual Reality Rehabilitation
Environments. In Proceedings of the 10th International 24. K. Tonndorf, C. Handschigl, J. Windscheid, H. Kosch,
Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its and M. Granitzer. 2015. The effect of non-linear
Applications in Industry (VRCAI ’11). ACM, New York, structures on the usage of hypervideo for physical
NY, USA, 343–346. DOI: training. In Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 2015 IEEE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2087756.2087810 International Conference on. 1–6. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2015.7177378
20. C. Snyder. 2003. Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy
Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces. Morgan 25. Stephen Uzor and Lynne Baillie. 2013. Exploring &
Kaufmann. Designing Tools to Enhance Falls Rehabilitation in the
https://books.google.de/books?id=YgBojJsVLGMC Home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). ACM,
21. Gabriele Spina, Guannan Huang, Anouk Vaes, Martijn New York, NY, USA, 1233–1242. DOI:
Spruit, and Oliver Amft. 2013. COPDTrainer: A http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466159
Smartphone-based Motion Rehabilitation Training
System with Real-time Acoustic Feedback. In 26. Mike Wald, Yunjia Li, George Cockshull, David Hulme,
Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Douglas Moore, Aidan Purdy-Say, and James Robinson.
Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing 2014. Synote Second Screening: Using Mobile Devices
(UbiComp ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 597–606. for Video Annotation and Control. In Computers Helping
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2493432.2493454 People with Special Needs. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, Vol. 8547. Springer International Publishing,
22. Spotify Ltd. 2015. Spotify Music. Website, 41–44. DOI:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08596-8_7
spotify.music&hl=en. (2015). (accessed April 27, 2015).