Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Cung cấp trải nghiệm người dùng trên mạng: Hướng tới chu trình thiết kế trung tâm Chất lượng Trải nghiệm nhằm cải thiện thiết kế các ứng dụng mạng
Tóm tắt
Để mang đến trải nghiệm người dùng (UX) tốt nhất, chu trình thiết kế lấy con người làm trung tâm (HCDC) phục vụ như một hướng dẫn đã được thiết lập cho các nhà phát triển ứng dụng. Tuy nhiên, chu trình này chưa đề cập đến các yêu cầu cụ thể về mạng, điều này trở nên ngày càng quan trọng khi hầu hết các ứng dụng cung cấp trải nghiệm qua Internet. Góc nhìn tập trung vào mạng còn thiếu này được cung cấp bởi Chất lượng Trải nghiệm (QoE), có thể kết hợp với UX để cải thiện trải nghiệm tổng thể. Bằng cách xem xét các khía cạnh QoE trong quy trình phát triển, có thể đạt được rằng các ứng dụng trở nên nhận biết mạng theo thiết kế. Trong bài báo này, Chu trình Thiết kế Đông đảo Chất lượng Trải nghiệm (QoE-CDC) được đề xuất, cung cấp hướng dẫn về cách thiết kế ứng dụng liên quan đến các yêu cầu mạng cụ thể và QoE. Giá trị thực tiễn của nó được minh họa cho các loại ứng dụng phổ biến và được xác thực bằng cách phác thảo thiết kế của một ứng dụng smartphone mới. Chúng tôi cho thấy rằng việc kết hợp HCDC và QoE-CDC sẽ dẫn đến một thiết kế ứng dụng, đạt được UX cao và tránh việc suy giảm QoE.
Từ khóa
#Chất lượng trải nghiệm #thiết kế lấy con người làm trung tâm #ứng dụng mạng #chu trình thiết kế #trải nghiệm người dùngTài liệu tham khảo
Ergonomics of Human-system Interaction—Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems. Standard, International Organization for Standardization 2019
Olmstead K, Atkinson M. Apps permissions in the google play store. 2015. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/11/10/apps-permissions-in-the-google-play-store/
Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis A, et al. Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience. European network on quality of experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003) 2012;3
Bargas-Avila JA, Hornbæk K. Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2011; pp. 2689–2698
Hammer F, Egger-Lampl S, Möller S. Quality-of-user-experience: a position paper. Qual User Exper. 2018;3(1):9.
Pavic B, Anstey C, Wagner J. Why speed matters. 2020. https://web.dev/why-speed-matters/
Seufert M, Egger S, Slanina M, Zinner T, Hoßfeld T, Tran-Gia P. A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2015a;17(1):469–92.
Seufert M, Wassermann S, Casas P. Considering user behavior in the quality of experience cycle: towards proactive QoE-aware traffic management. IEEE Commun Lett. 2019;23(7):1145–8.
Juluri P, Tamarapalli V, Medhi D. Measurement of quality of experience of video-on-demand services: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2015;18(1):401–18.
Baraković S, Skorin-Kapov L. Survey and challenges of QoE management issues in wireless networks. J Comput Netw Commun. 2013;2013(165146):1–28.
Qadir QM, Kist AA, Zhang Z. Mechanisms for QoE optimisation of video traffic: a review paper. Australas J Inf Commun Technol Appl. 2015;1:1.
Zinner T, Jarschel M, Blenk A, Wamser F, Kellerer W. Dynamic application-aware resource management using software-defined networking: implementation prospects and challenges. In: 2014 IEEE network operations and management symposium (NOMS), IEEE 2014; pp. 1–6
Schatz R, Schwarzmann S, Zinner T, Dobrijevic O, Liotou E, Pocta P, Barakovic S, Husic JB, Skorin-Kapov L. QoE Management for future networks. In: Autonomous control for a reliable internet of services. Springer, Cham 2018; pp. 49–80
Hartson R, Pyla PS. The UX book: process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2012.
Gkonos C, Iosifescu Enescu I, Hurni L. Spinning the wheel of design: evaluating geoportal graphical user interface adaptations in terms of human-centred design. Int J Cartogr. 2019;5(1):23–43.
Hooey B, Foyle D, Andre A. Integration of cockpit displays for surface operations—the final stage of a human-centered design approach. In: 2000 World aviation conference 2000; p. 5521
Babion JN, Ocampo W, Haubrich S, Yang C, Zuk T, Kaufman J, Carpendale S, Ghali W, Altabbaa G. Human-centred design processes for clinical decision support: a pulmonary embolism case study. Int J Med Inform. 2020;147:104196.
Realpe-Munoz P, Collazos CA, Hurtado J, Granollers T, Velasco-Medina J. An integration of usable security and user authentication into the ISO 9241-210 and ISO/IEC 25010: 2011. In: International conference on human aspects of information security, privacy, and trust, Springer 2016; pp. 65–76
Farooqui T, Rana T, Jafari F. Impact of Human-centered Design Process (HCDP) on Software Development Process. In: 2019 2nd international conference on communication, computing and digital systems (C-CODE), IEEE 2019; pp. 110–114
Pyla PS, Pérez-Quiñones MA, Arthur JD, Hartson HR. Towards a model-based framework for integrating usability and software engineering life cycles. CLOSING THE GAPS: software engineering and human-computer interaction 2004; p. 1
Campos JC. The modelling gap between software engineering and human-computer interaction. In: ICSE 2004 workshop: bridging the gaps II, 2004; pp. 54–61
Sandvine: the mobile internet phenomena report. Tech Rep 2020
Hoßfeld T, Schatz R, Varela M, Timmerer C. Challenges of QoE management for cloud applications. IEEE Commun Mag. 2012;50(4):28–36.
Möller S, Raake A. Quality of experience: advanced concepts. Applications and methods. Berlin: Springer; 2014.
Rec I. P. 910. Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications 2008; p. 910
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly 1989; pp. 319–340
Brooks P, Hestnes B. User measures of quality of experience: why being objective and quantitative is important. IEEE Netw. 2010;24(2):8–13.
Kjeldskov J, Graham C. A Review of Mobile HCI Research Methods. In: International conference on mobile human-computer interaction, Springer 2003; pp. 317–335
Egger S, Hoßfeld T, Schatz R, Fiedler M. Waiting times in quality of experience for web based services. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). Yarra Valley, Australia; 2012a
Casas P, Schatz R, Wamser F, Seufert M, Irmer R. Exploring QoE in cellular networks: how much bandwidth do you need for popular smartphone apps? In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on all things cellular: operations, applications and challenges, 2015; pp. 13–18
Research D. Failing to meet mobile app user expectations: a mobile user survey. 2015. https://techbeacon.com/sites/default/files/gated_asset/mobile-app-user-survey-failing-meet-user-expectations.pdf
Myers BA. The importance of percent-done progress indicators for computer-human interfaces. ACM SIGCHI Bull. 1985;16(4):11–7.
Biørn-Hansen A, Majchrzak TA, Grønli TM. Progressive web apps: the possible web-native unifier for mobile development. In: International conference on web information systems and technologies, SCITEPRESS 2017;2:344–351
Harrison C, Amento B, Kuznetsov S, Bell R. Rethinking the progress bar. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, 2007; pp. 115–118
Li W, Wang M, Li W, Cai B, Shi Y. An Improvement on the progress bar: make it a story, make it a game. In: International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, Springer 2020;pp. 394–401
Mejtoft T, Långström A, Söderström U. The effect of skeleton screens: users’ perception of speed and ease of navigation. In: Proceedings of the 36th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, 2018;pp. 1–4
Seufert M, Burger V, Hoßfeld T. HORST-home router sharing based on trust. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on network and service management (CNSM 2013), IEEE. 2013; pp. 402–405
Chen QA, Luo H, Rosen S, Mao ZM, Iyer K, Hui J, Sontineni K, Lau K. Qoe doctor: diagnosing mobile app QoE with automated UI control and cross-layer analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on internet measurement conference, 2014; pp. 151–164
Ghadiyaram D, Pan J, Bovik AC: A time-varying subjective quality model for mobile streaming videos with stalling events. In: Proceedings of SPIE Applications of Digital Image Processing XXXVIII. San Diego, CA, USA; 2015
Zeng K, Yeganeh H, Wang Z. Quality-of-Experience of streaming video: interactions between presentation quality and playback stalling. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP). Phoenix, AZ, USA 2016
Seufert M, Hoßfeld T, Sieber C. Impact of intermediate layer on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on network and service management (CNSM). 2015; Barcelona, Spain
Sackl A, Egger S, Schatz R. Where’s the Music? Comparing the QoE impact of temporal impairments between music and video streaming. In: 2013 Fifth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), IEEE 2013; pp. 64–69.
Schwind A, Moldovan C, Janiak T, Dworschak ND, Hoßfeld T. Don’t Stop the Music: Crowdsourced QoE Assessment of Music Streaming with Stalling. In: 2020 Twelfth international conference on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), IEEE 2020; pp. 1–6.
Schwind A, Haberzettl L, Wamser F, Hoßfeld T. QoE analysis of spotify audio streaming and app browsing. In: Proceedings of the 4th internet-QoE workshop on QoE-based analysis and management of data communication networks, 2019; pp. 25–30
Information technology. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH). Part 1: Media presentation description and segment formats. Standard, International Organization for Standardization 2012
Ahmed A, Shafiq Z, Bedi H, Khakpour A. Suffering from Buffering? Detecting QoE Impairments in Live Video Streams. In: 2017 IEEE 25th international conference on network protocols (ICNP), IEEE, 2017; pp. 1–10
Yi G, Yang D, Bentaleb A, Li W, Li Y, Zheng K, Liu J, Ooi WT, Cui Y. The acm multimedia 2019 live video streaming grand challenge. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on multimedia, MM ’19, 2019; p. 2622-2626
Berndtsson G, Folkesson M, Kulyk V. Subjective Quality Assessment of Video Conferences and Telemeetings. In: 2012 19th International Packet Video Workshop (PV), IEEE, 2012; pp. 25–30
Zinner T, Abboud O, Hohlfeld O, Hossfeld T, Tran-Gia P. Towards qoe management for scalable video streaming. In: 21th ITC specialist seminar on multimedia applications-traffic, performance and QoE, 2010; pp. 64–69. Citeseer
Hoßfeld T, Schatz R, Zinner T, Seufert M, Tran-Gia P. Transport protocol influences on youtube videostreaming qoe. Tech Rep University of Würzburg, Institute of computer science; 2011a.
Skorin-Kapov L, Matijasevic M. Analysis of QoS requirements for E-health services and mapping to evolved packet system QoS classes. Int J Telemed Appl 2010
De La Torre Díez I, Alonso SG, Hamrioui S, López-Coronado M, Cruz EM. Systematic review about QoS and QoE in telemedicine and ehealth services and applications. J Med Syst. 2018;42(10):182.
Miller K, Al-Tamimi AK, Wolisz A. Qoe-based low-delay live streaming using throughput predictions. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl (TOMM). 2016;13(1):1–24.
Yuang MC, Liang ST, Chen YG, Shen CL. Dynamic video playout smoothing method for multimedia applications. In: Proceedings of ICC/SUPERCOMM’96-international conference on communications, IEEE 1996;3: 1365–1369
Kalman M, Steinbach E, Girod B. Adaptive media playout for low-delay video streaming over error-prone channels. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol. 2004;14(6):841–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2004.828335.
Rainer B, Timmerer C. Quality of experience of web-based adaptive http streaming clients in real-world environments using crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the 2014 workshop on design, quality and deployment of adaptive video streaming, 2014; pp. 19–24
Fiadino P, Schiavone M, Casas P. Vivisecting WhatsApp in cellular networks: servers, flows, and quality of experience. In: International workshop on traffic monitoring and analysis, Springer 2015; pp. 49–63
Seufert M, Wehner N, Casas P. App for dynamic crowdsourced qoe studies of http adaptive streaming on mobile devices. In: 2018 Network traffic measurement and analysis conference (TMA), IEEE 2018 ;pp. 1–2
Wehner N, Mertinat N, Seufert M, Hoßfeld T. Studying the impact of the content selection method on the video qoe on mobile devices. In: 2020 Twelfth international conference on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), IEEE 2020; pp. 1–4
Hoßfeld T, Hirth M, Redi J, Mazza F, Korshunov P, Naderi B, Seufert M, Gardlo B, Egger S, Keimel C. Best practices and recommendations for crowdsourced qoe-lessons learned from the qualinet task force crowdsourcing. COST Action IC 1003 Qualinet Tech Rep; 2014
Hoßfeld T, Seufert M, Hirth M, Zinner T, Tran-Gia P, Schatz R. Quantification of youtube QoE via crowdsourcing. In: 2011 IEEE International symposium on multimedia, IEEE 2011b; pp. 494–499.
Egger S, Reichl P, Hoßfeld T, Schatz R. “time is bandwidth”? narrowing the gap between subjective time perception and quality of experience. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), IEEE 2012b; pp. 1325–1330
Strohmeier D, Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Raake A. Toward task-dependent evaluation of web-qoe: Free exploration vs. who ate what?. In: 2012 IEEE globecom workshops, IEEE 2012; pp. 1309–1313
Sylvain Saurel: How to retrieve an unique ID to identify android devices? https://medium.com/@ssaurel/how-to-retrieve-an-unique-id-to-identify-android-devices-6f99fd5369eb
International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation P.910: subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications 2008
