Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

Usability for the Web on Television

Rated 3.96 (Ratings: 9) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(9 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of gainef

frank gaine

Member info | Full bio

User since: January 22, 2001

Last login: January 22, 2001

Articles written: 5

Usability for the Web on Television

The convergence of the web and television throws up numerous challenges for usability engineers. As more and more of the population choose to access the Internet through their television (usually via set-top boxes and with the assistance of television remote controls), optimizing web pages for use on these devices becomes a priority.

These issues tend to be exacerbated by inherent differences between the two technologies. For instance, television is usually thought of as "lean-back" technology, whereas the computer is seen as "lean-forward" technology. Television viewers on average sit more than 9 feet away from their sets, whereas computer users are usually within 13 inches of their monitors. Television viewers are accustomed to being passive and having information presented to them. Computer use requires more active interaction and maximizes user initiative.

It is possible that the fundamental conflict between these modes of operation will mean that web-on-television is doomed to failure. But, in the meantime, what can be done to ensure high quality user-experience when viewing the web on TV?

Page Size

Understand the size of the screen on which your page will be displayed. Systems in North America and Japan, based on Microsoft's WebTV, display Web pages in a fixed 544 x 372 screen space. Pages that are wider than 544 pixels will be scaled to fit that width. Conversely, pages that fall short of the regulatory 544 pixels will be displayed within a sea of wasted white space. Within the 544-pixel-wide screen environment, designers are limited to a two column layout when opting for a columnar page format.

The 544-pixel benchmark is a helpful guideline for designers and usability engineers alike, but it does not incorporate the ever-increasing spectrum of screen sizes that continue to emerge onto the market. With this in mind designers should consider?

Resolution-independent Design

There is no way (yet) of knowing just how large a screen your users have, so you ought to design for all screen resolutions. To master resolution-independent design, never use a fixed pixel-width for any tables, frames or other design elements. Instead, use percentages of available space, as opposed to fixed sizes. This way, your code can adjust itself to whichever screen size accordingly.

Text

The default text size for the web on television is 18 point (as opposed to 12 point for computer-oriented browsers). Due to larger font size and smaller screen resolution, less text may fit onto a television viewing area than on a computer monitor screen. With this in mind, it is essential to be as concise as possible when creating content for the Web on television. Keep it simple; having minimal and easily assimilated content on each page is the key.

In an ideal world, it is best not to include text within images, as the characters can prove difficult to read on a Web television screen. If needs be, text represented through graphics should be kept over 16 points in size to ensure legibility. This is important in the context of navigational buttons. Legibility is also enhanced, as always, by bold text and high contrast between text and background colour.

Colours

Television screen displays are not as sharp as those of computer monitors. Use shape as well as colour to get your message across. Common and unavoidable variations between television displays may mean that subtle colours will not achieve their desired effect. Colours can also appear more vivid on television than on computer screens and should be de-saturated if possible.

Download Times

When a set-top box is used in accessing your web page on television, it should not be forgotten that such a box has less memory than a personal computer. It will better handle Web content if the pages are small and do not take up a significant amount of memory. By keeping file sizes small, download times are kept to a minimum.

There is no need to eat up precious memory by integrating the latest technology into websites that few will have immediate access to anyway. Use the time and tow the line. People like fast service and usability engineers ought to bear in mind that every five bytes of memory saved shaves a valuable millisecond off download time. TV users, in particular, are used to the instantaneous reaction of the remote control and are unlikely to tolerate not getting to their destination as quickly as possible.

Navigation

Ideally, the page should be clear and easy to navigate using the relevant input device (usually a television remote control and wireless keyboard which are suited for small amounts of user input). Excessive scrolling or an irrational order in reading links will only serve to confuse and frustrate the user. Avoid excessively long lists of links and provide rich hypertext.

Keep Testing

As always, it is imperative to test your pages with representatives of your target audience on real web television systems. Guidelines are useful, but only your target audience can really judge how successful your offering is.

Don't forget the developer sites...

Submitted by aardvark on January 22, 2001 - 16:58.

WebTV has a very handy developer site that includes things like the WebTV Viewer so you can get an idea of how sites might look by using this browser on your Mac or Wintel machine, or the WebTV checklist to give some hints up-front, or even their general design section which gives tips on browser detection, using JavaScript status bar messages to alleviate problems with buttons with tiny text, and even color tips.

Of course, we all know WebTV is just one possible platform, but it's a good place to start practicing.

login or register to post comments

More resources

Submitted by andyed on January 23, 2001 - 12:43.

A related article from my search engine: "The Killer App is TV ": Designing The Digital TV Interface Marc Green, Ph.D. John W. Senders, Ph. D. ERGO/GERO Human Factors Science

login or register to post comments

What kind of customer base are we talking about?

Submitted by HMV on January 23, 2001 - 13:55.

A good article with hints that can be "ported" to a lot of other design challenges and cross-browser issues. "As more and more of the population choose to access the Internet through their television..." I wonder what "more and more" is. For us, it's hardly anything but we do not target home consumers. That's not to say developing content viewable by all isn't worthwhile in itself, but I'd like to get a good handle on the growth of this method of viewing content. Just informally - is anyone willing to share what portion of the browsing audience visits your sites using "nontraditional" methods (include WAP too if you'd like)?

login or register to post comments

WebTV stats

Submitted by aardvark on January 23, 2001 - 18:08.

So far, WAP users make up about 0.01% of our site visitors. WebTV users were at a similar percentage until we did some work for a local not-for-profit. It seems boatloads of locals with WebTV came to our site from there, pushing the WebTV user base to almost 1% for a few months.

These numbers hold true for pretty much every site on which I've worked, except before either existed. But I still account for them in the designs if possible.

login or register to post comments

web TV is an oxymoron

Submitted by headlemur on January 24, 2001 - 11:10.

Despite the fact that I build mostly liquid sites for my clients, I have yet to meet one that has a TV in their office. Web TV is a technology that will need to have a number of serious issues addresses before it comes close to being considered as anything more than a curiosity for folks who gotta have everything or people that buy anything that is offered. The first issue is enough processing power and memory so that your experience is a little closer to real time rather than trying to suck a dumptruck through a soda straw. The second issue making a broad leap of faith, is that HDTV actually becomes a usable and defacto standard. The third issue is being able to render anything more complex than text and simple gifs. The fourth issue is bandwidth, broadcast, cable or copper. The primary beneficiaries of web tv would be home shopping networks and informercial companies. point click and buy. But you don't hear about the qvc's or home shopping networks spending big bucks either in money, networks or lobbying to get this off the ground.

login or register to post comments

Not an oxymoron, but not the pinnacle of function

Submitted by aardvark on January 24, 2001 - 15:52.

To address headlemur's four points quickly here, I've had some recent and frequent experience with WebTV.
  1. Even the WebTV Classic processes pages as quickly as my P133 at home, or my parents' eMachine, and that seems to be fast enough.
  2. I'm not quite sure how the HDTV part fits in here, since we're still a ways away from that, and potentially newer web appliances will be released for the HDTV market.
  3. As for an inability to render more than text and .gifs, WebTV itself supports Flash 3, a subset of CSS-1, non-Java chat, forms, frames, cookies, "Buddy Lists," image maps (both kinds), JavaScript 1.2, 40- and 128-bit SSL, MPEG, a bunch of audio formats, the TIFF-G3 fax format, and even .png (server side).
  4. Bandwidth is something that doesn't seem to be any slower than your average modem right now. Yes, users don't get immediate response like changing channels offers, but I've yet to hear any of them complain. I think they've been warned that the web can be a slow place.
And ultimately, you aren't building sites for clients, you're building them for users. Yes, clients will make decisions for you, but it's up to you as a developer to understand the value of those decisions and provide enough information and guidance for the client to make good decisions.

login or register to post comments

Another thorn in the web developers side

Submitted by Drinky on January 30, 2001 - 00:59.

More tin-pot pants from a board of directors looking to cash in on this internet thing.

login or register to post comments

Could you unpack that a bit, Drinky?

Submitted by MartinB on February 5, 2001 - 12:18.

Drinky

Are you referring to the content of the article, or WebTV generically? If the former, I don't think your comment is either fair or accurate.

login or register to post comments

Another thorn in the web developers side

Submitted by Drinky on February 22, 2001 - 08:58.

It was aimed purely at web TV not the article.
(although there was only a mention of NTSC tv systems)

It's just annoying, that now there is another browser with its own set of limitations.

I have some experience with designing graphics for TV so i think i'll just add some observations.

The fact that it runs on a TV is a nightmare, due to the differing viewable sizes on different Systems, On a PAL TV there are more lines than on an NTSC TV so the resolution is slightly higher, but the refresh rate of the screen is slower on PAL 50Hz as opposed to NTSC's 60Hz. The SECAM system is slightly different again.

Then there are colour considerations, the colour systems on PAL and NTSC are different.

The NTSC colour system focusses on producing accurate bright primary colours where as on a PAL system the emphasis is on pastel shades. As a result watching NTSC films on a PAL tv for example always makes the actors/actreese in the films look like they have bright red faces.

There will need to be a new version of the web-safe colour pallette :O) which caters for the differing TV standards throughout the world, as well as different browsers and computer platforms.

Also designing graphics for TV is a different science from designing onscreen graphics for computer monitors. Look closely at your monitor you will notice that the pixles that make up the monitors screen are alligned in straight horizontal and vertical lines (unless you have a really old or wierd monitor), this allows the monitor to display accurate straight lines. On a TV they are arranged differently there are straight vertical lines of pixles but they are offset against each other.

The effect of this is that if you draw a box, on a monitor it will look crisp with nice straight edges, but on a TV it will have a 'fuzzy' top and bottom, you don't notice this so much when you watch programmes beacause you are sat so far away from the TV, usually on the other side of the room in a chair or on a bed. But with web pages, you have lots of text on them so the smaller the TV's physical size the closer you will have to get, and the problems with TV pictures is that the closer you get, the worse they look.

Roll on mass acceptance of HDTV :O) or digital projectors fed off of sony's new render cube.

I'm sorry if this sounds like I tirade against web TV, it wasn't intended to be, im just remembering all of the old browser compatability headaches, and anticipating plenty of new ones, because this time it's not just the HTML and layout, it's the graphics too :O)

But hey were all in it for the challenge right.

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.