<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>An Approach towards the Exploration of User Preference Adaptation for Cross Device, Cross Context Video Content Recommenders in Web 2.0 Environments</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Kevin Mercer</string-name>
          <email>K.C.Mercer@lboro.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Ergonomics Safety Research Institute, Loughborough University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Leicestershire, LE11 3TU</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UK">United Kingdom</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2009</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>22</fpage>
      <lpage>26</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Video content recommenders are becoming wide spread in the age of ubiquitous access to the internet and web 2.0. But how does the context of video consumption e ect content preference? This paper argues for a greater understanding of the impact of viewing context upon preference adaptation in the new age of multi platform, mobile video entertainment. This paper advocates an approach which investigates preference adaptation from the perspective of users self moderating content choices in response to perceptions of the current viewing context. The author suggests ethnographic study of naturalistic content consumption behaviours as a possible methodology to uncover insight into this area, which could inform design requirements for future video recommenders operating in cross context environments.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Video</kwd>
        <kwd>Recommenders</kwd>
        <kwd>User</kwd>
        <kwd>Experience</kwd>
        <kwd>Context</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Video content recommenders have been with us for some time. Popularised by
TiVo1 on the set top box and MovieLens2and Net ix3 on the internet we have
seen video content recommender engines, (as well as peer recommendations)
propagate onto many of the worlds most popular web 2.0 video, movie and TV
web sites, see [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. This has o ered bene ts to both commercial content
providers as well as end users by enabling the promotion, discovery and
enjoyment of long tail [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ], video content.
      </p>
      <p>
        Web 2.0 applications are at the forefront of an increasing trend towards
video content aggregation and personalised recommendations. The technology
has established itself at a time when mainstream ubiquitous access to high speed
internet has exploded. This has fueled an entertainment revolution with access
to video services and long tail content over a multiplicity of mobile devices in
addition to more traditional content delivery routes such as broadcast television.
The next step in the enhancement of these systems (which is well underway) is
the joining up of services across devices and networks in order to enable a
consistent brand message and user experience. There are many examples of evidence
for this trend in the marketplace with content providers and service operators
alike o ering singular branded video content delivery propositions across all of
their television, internet and mobile services, [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>The Challenge</title>
      <p>A user utilising a video content service across a range of devices and viewing
contexts may have expectations regarding the types of content they wish to
consume within each of those situations. We can imagine a member of a family
when home alone, taking the opportunity to watch one piece of preferred content
over another purely because they know it is of interest only to themselves. They
do so under the rational that the other content whilst of equal interest is also
enjoyed by the family as a whole. Therefore further opportunities to watch that
item are more likely to present themselves at some other time with the family
group. Another example could be a user choosing not to watch a movie to their
preference on a train commute. The reasons being that the time available, mobile
device screen size, and context of sitting on a train surrounded by strangers would
(from their perspective) spoil the experience in contrast to watching the same
content at home on the settee in front of their wide screen television.</p>
      <p>As operators and broadcasters look to unify video content services across
devices and environments, several fundamental theoretical questions are raised
in relation to the contexts of video consumption which impact upon content
selection decisions and therefore the role of recommenders. In order to provide
a good experience to the user, a video recommender acting as part of such a
service would need to take consideration of the nuances of context. This raises a
number of issues surrounding not only if recommender outputs can be ltered to
provide the best utility to a user within a given viewing context, but also if the
construction of a single user model is valid for a system collecting information
from many di erent viewing situations.</p>
      <p>We must therefore ask, do the contextual factors which surround use in
different socio-technical environments in uence the video content selections users
make at any given time? If this is the case, how can video content selections
collected from within a speci c context be usefully applied within a user model with
the intention of providing recommendations across a landscape of ever changing
contexts of use? Finally, even with an e cient recommender system in place how
can recommendation selection and presentation be optimised to cope with the
conditions imposed on a viewing experience by those same contextual factors?
These questions need to be answered to ensure the success of future video content
recommenders operating across devices within ubiquitous mobile environments.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Unraveling Perceived Context</title>
      <p>
        Addressing research problems in this area requires a consideration of what
context actually is. This short overview is not the place to delve deeply into the
literature in relation to de nitions of context, however many researchers agree
that there still remains considerable confusion surrounding the notion of what
context is [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], and many competing view points [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. In terms of content
recommenders the author advocates an approach which supports the following
two viewpoints. Firstly Winograd [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ], argues context is only that information
which is useful to convey and act upon. Therefore developing a system to
understand more than is needed in order to support the user activities is a source of
wasted time, money and added complexity. Secondly is the argument of Bellotti
and Edwards [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ], that systems should not seek to act on behalf of the user, but
should instead support a users actions and defer to them in e cient and
nonobtrusive manners. This second point is pertinent to content recommenders if we
approach viewing preference selections within given situations as self moderated
action. The author de nes this as selections made by a user in response to their
own subjective perceptions of the current context and related predictions for the
viewing experience to follow. The author would argue that these factors lead
users to moderate absolute content preferences when choosing things to watch.
This is a subtlety di erent approach to considering content selections purely in
terms of video content preferences made within a speci c context. The important
factors for a recommendation system to focus upon now become the users own
perception of the viewing context rather than any notion of context as a set of
technical, geographical or temporal constraints.
      </p>
      <p>This as a useful way in which to consider context in future video
recommenders as historic restrictions on access to content due to the constraints of
broadcast schedules and device connectivity are being rapidly eroded through
technological and commercial advances. This approach addresses a world where
we could view any video content anywhere. Choices are made in response to
users own perceptions of the viewing context and predictions for the experience
to follow, which in turn are based on past viewing experiences in others contexts
perceived as similar.</p>
      <p>
        Approaching the problem of context from the perspective of user perceptions
has many precedents in the literature. As example the concepts of situatedness
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ], and re-place-ing space [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ], demonstrate that higher level notions of
perceived context can provide a general approach to the identi cation of relevant
aspects of a situation through which video consumption experiences may be
characterised. A focus for contextual investigations following this research approach
should therefore be to attempt to identify di erences in viewing situations by
the same inter-contextual cues [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ], perceived by the users when they build their
own mental models of the current context.
      </p>
      <p>The hypothesis under consideration is that inter-contextual cues manifest
within a consumption situation are used by the user in the formulation of their
own perceptions of context, upon which they then base decisions to mediate
their own content selection and consumption behaviours.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Next Steps and About this Research</title>
      <p>The research direction advocated in this paper relates to user research activities
currently underway aimed at identifying those aspects of context which in uence
video consumption behaviours and content selection. An ethnographic study is
currently being conducted which is following a range of individual users through
a two week period. An array of qualitative and quantitative data collection
methods are being employed in an attempt to capture a picture of each users video
content selection behaviours across the range of sources they consume video
content from. In parallel the study will describe the setting (physical, social and
technical) within which they consume. The goal is to attempt to identify self
moderated patterns of content preference adaption and the important factors
within each viewing situation which may signify the inter-contextual cues (upon
perception of which) the user has responded by adapting their content choices.</p>
      <p>This study is being carried out as part of a PhD project investigating the
wider issue of user experience optimisation for future video content
recommenders. The overall goal of the research is to investigate the possibility of
a framework for a video content personalisation and presentation system which
can operate across devices and consumption contexts whilst providing the best
possible experiences for users.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Google</given-names>
            <surname>Video</surname>
          </string-name>
          , http://www.video.google.com
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>2. Veoh, http://www.veoh.com</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Hollywood</given-names>
            <surname>Video</surname>
          </string-name>
          , http://www.hollywoodvideo.com
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Anderson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>The Long Tail</article-title>
          .
          <source>Wired Magazine</source>
          .
          <volume>10</volume>
          , pp.
          <volume>171</volume>
          {
          <fpage>177</fpage>
          . (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>5. British Sky Broadcasting, http://packages.sky.com/</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>6. BBC iPlayer, http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dourish</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>What we talk about when we talk about context</article-title>
          .
          <source>Personal and Ubiquitous Computing</source>
          .
          <volume>8</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <volume>19</volume>
          {
          <issue>30</issue>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jameson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Modeling both the context and the user</article-title>
          .
          <source>Personal and Ubiquitous Computing</source>
          .
          <volume>5</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <volume>29</volume>
          {
          <issue>33</issue>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kotz</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A survey of Context-Aware Mobile Computing Research</article-title>
          . Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire. (
          <year>2000</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Greenberg</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Context as a Dynamic Construct. Human-Computer Interaction</article-title>
          .
          <volume>16</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ,
          <issue>3</issue>
          , and 4), pp.
          <fpage>257</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>268</lpage>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Winograd</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Architectures for Context. Human-Computer Interaction</article-title>
          .
          <volume>16</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ,
          <issue>3</issue>
          , and 4), pp.
          <fpage>401</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>419</lpage>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bellotti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Edwards</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Intelligibility and accountability</article-title>
          . Human-Computer Interaction.
          <volume>16</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ,
          <issue>3</issue>
          , and 4), pp.
          <fpage>193</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>212</lpage>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13. Rohl ng, K.J.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rehm</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Goecke</surname>
          </string-name>
          , K.U.:
          <article-title>Situatedness: The Interplay between Context and Situation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Cognition and Culture</source>
          .
          <volume>3</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>132</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>156</lpage>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Harrison</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dourish</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Re-place-ing space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCS 96)</source>
          , ACM Press, pp.
          <fpage>67</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>76</lpage>
          (
          <year>1996</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Clancey</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Situated action: A neuropsychological interpretation response to Vera and Simon</article-title>
          .
          <source>Cognitive Science</source>
          ,
          <volume>17</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>18</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>116</lpage>
          (
          <year>1993</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>