探讨多媒体体验质量研究中使用的主观评价方法

K. Kunze, D. Strohmeier
{"title":"探讨多媒体体验质量研究中使用的主观评价方法","authors":"K. Kunze, D. Strohmeier","doi":"10.1109/QoMEX.2012.6263838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many different evaluation methods for assessing the Quality of Experience (QoE) of multimedia systems nowadays exist in official QoE recommendations and methodological publications as well as related areas of research like User experience (UX) and usability. Although the goal of each method is to evaluate QoE in user studies either quantitatively or qualitatively, our first approach to classify these methods beyond results is complex. In this paper, we extend the previously developed comparison model, which was based on literature review only with an evaluation of the developed classes by expert interviews. The interviews deepened our understanding of method comparison and guided method selection process. The results show that different levels of importance can be assigned to the comparison criteria of the first model. Based on the experts' contributions in the interview, we propose a revised comparison model, which is more suitable for adaptation towards its operationalization and the further comparison tool development.","PeriodicalId":6303,"journal":{"name":"2012 Fourth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience","volume":"48 1","pages":"51-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining subjective evaluation methods used in multimedia Quality of Experience research\",\"authors\":\"K. Kunze, D. Strohmeier\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/QoMEX.2012.6263838\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many different evaluation methods for assessing the Quality of Experience (QoE) of multimedia systems nowadays exist in official QoE recommendations and methodological publications as well as related areas of research like User experience (UX) and usability. Although the goal of each method is to evaluate QoE in user studies either quantitatively or qualitatively, our first approach to classify these methods beyond results is complex. In this paper, we extend the previously developed comparison model, which was based on literature review only with an evaluation of the developed classes by expert interviews. The interviews deepened our understanding of method comparison and guided method selection process. The results show that different levels of importance can be assigned to the comparison criteria of the first model. Based on the experts' contributions in the interview, we propose a revised comparison model, which is more suitable for adaptation towards its operationalization and the further comparison tool development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2012 Fourth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"51-56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2012 Fourth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2012.6263838\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 Fourth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2012.6263838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

目前,在官方的体验质量建议和方法论出版物以及用户体验(UX)和可用性等相关研究领域中,存在许多用于评估多媒体系统体验质量(QoE)的不同评估方法。尽管每种方法的目标都是定量或定性地评估用户研究中的QoE,但除了结果之外,我们对这些方法进行分类的第一种方法是复杂的。在本文中,我们扩展了先前开发的比较模型,该模型仅基于文献综述,通过专家访谈对开发类进行评估。访谈加深了我们对方法比较和指导方法选择过程的理解。结果表明,第一种模型的比较标准可以划分不同的重要程度。根据专家在访谈中的贡献,我们提出了一个修正的比较模型,该模型更适合于其运作和进一步的比较工具开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Examining subjective evaluation methods used in multimedia Quality of Experience research
Many different evaluation methods for assessing the Quality of Experience (QoE) of multimedia systems nowadays exist in official QoE recommendations and methodological publications as well as related areas of research like User experience (UX) and usability. Although the goal of each method is to evaluate QoE in user studies either quantitatively or qualitatively, our first approach to classify these methods beyond results is complex. In this paper, we extend the previously developed comparison model, which was based on literature review only with an evaluation of the developed classes by expert interviews. The interviews deepened our understanding of method comparison and guided method selection process. The results show that different levels of importance can be assigned to the comparison criteria of the first model. Based on the experts' contributions in the interview, we propose a revised comparison model, which is more suitable for adaptation towards its operationalization and the further comparison tool development.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Investigating the effects of test clip quality distribution in HD video Quality-of-Experience studies No-reference bitstream-based impairment detection for high efficiency video coding A perceptual quality based rate distortion model Evaluation of visual privacy filters impact on video surveillance intelligibility Too tired for calling? A physiological measure of fatigue caused by bandwidth limitations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1