An example – testing interactive World Cup 2002 services
As the national football teams from thirty-two countries engaged in the World Cup 2002 in June 2002, several broadcasters launched interactive applications to stimulate the viewers’ appetite for coverage.
The offerings included:
• Multiple TV-streams: Examples included, the Main picture (the general feed that analogue viewers would see), Team A and team B (focusing on the coaches and substitutes on the benches), Tactical (seen from a very high angle from behind one goal) and Highlights (looping or repeating goals and other, well, highlights of the game so far).
• A mosaic channel composed of some of the channels above.
• Various services: a separate TV-domain with news and team standings and more, overlay match info showing team line-ups and player profiles, plus occasional quiz and poll overlays, that during the game encouraged viewers to SMS a response to questions like “Who will win this game?” and “Who won the World Cup in 1998?”
Illustration XXII: A prototype of the Canal Digital mosaic channel for the World Cup 2002.
It includes from top left: the Main picture (the general feed that analogue viewers would see), Highlights, Team A (Argentina) and team B (Italy) and Tactical.
For the testing of these applications, we had football-enthusiasts watch games of their choice and in the company of their choice (three friends, a couple, two brothers, etc.) in a usability lab disguised as a living room. During each test, we provided the test persons with the above services from one of the two available broadcasters (Canal Digital and TDC Kabel TV), a brief introduction to the i-TV services and the remote control, and plenty of soft drinks and snacks.
The study encompassed:
• Seven games in the preliminary rounds (e.g. Italy-Ecuador and Denmark- Senegal);
• Seven different groups of different sizes (from two to four viewers);
• Varying age groups (from teenagers to a couple in their fifties); and
• Viewers with a range of experience using set top boxes and interactive TV (some had never used it, some had and some even owned the particular box).
The focus was to see if the viewers were interested in the interactive services and how and when they used them.
We learned that for these users, watching the World Cup was all about two things: engagement in and understanding of the game. Interactive services certainly had potential for playing a major role in both areas. The test persons expressed that they expected to get a more intense sensory experience, easier access to detailed, up-dated information about the game and the tournament as well as more freedom to choose the game coverage. But as it turned out, the applications had marginal applicability to the users’ interests and therefore, the users’ use of the interactive services while evident and engaged at first, tapered off during the match.
To increase the sensory experience, the enthusiasts wished to see the same game highlights again (and sometimes again and again), to see the game from different camera angles and to choose the type of commentator – some wanted the distanced, neutral tone of voice, some a commentator in another language or even from one of the competing nations, others wanted a specific commentator. They also wished they had access to a separate channel broadcasting the game with a fifteen to thirty second delay.
The enthusiasts had extensive knowledge of the participants in the games – players, substitutes, coaches, referees and commentators. Among other sources, this knowledge came from tele-text (also know as Text-TV), betting magazines, newspapers, and football shows. The interests of the enthusiasts would often include betting, polls and competitions on multiple media like the web and newspapers. (As of yet, none of the interactive TV applications include these elements.)
When watching the games, the viewers would spend much time debating the strengths and possibilities of the teams in the tournament. They demanded facts to help them understand the game here and now - such as substitutions and bookings (warnings) – as well as the unfolding tournament – including the current standings, possible scenarios in case of goals in this match etc. They did not mention any interest in statistical facts or World Cup trivia, such as who made the fastest goal ever, how many corner kicks per match or the like. The overall message that emerged from our testing was: Practical information about the current tournament, please.
To sum up: the enthusiasts did not find the available services very interesting and they did not use them very much:
• The camera angles provided would rarely bring the viewers any closer to the game action than would the regular broadcast stream. Only the tactical angle gained some interest and was used in 2-3% of an average game. The highlight channel was a disappointment in the first part of the game, as the highlights are few and not instantly updated, for instance after a goal.
• The separate TV domain with news and standings was completely superfluous in the context of the game that was the focus of the test. Maybe in between games viewers would find it interesting, but the information was out of date compared to the many resources of news and analysis that these enthusiasts would seek.
The quizzes and polls were dull and un-engaging. What the test persons really wanted to do was to place bets and to check the odds on the games, and to order pizzas, beer or soft drinks. In any case, they did not want to miss one second of the game, so these services would only be of interest to them if designed to function without disturbing the game.
Most of these findings – about the nature of watching a game and following a tournament – could have been achieved at an early stage of development of the World Cup i-TV services simply by applying generally accepted usability prototyping and iterative testing. This could have helped the broadcasters to provide much more interesting and appealing services to the viewers, increasing the general interest in interactive TV and maybe its penetration, and thereby serving the broadcasters (as well as the viewers) interests in many ways.
