Why do digital TV interfaces all look the same?
December 24th, 2008 by YosiA recent post on Contentinople by R. Scott Raynovich notes, “Nearly everybody on the panel zeroed in on the consumer interface,” pointing to the poor quality of current digital TV interfaces. This could be seen as rather embarrassing: the entertainment industry hasn’t yet invented a disruptive interface for content selection. My perception is that for the past decade and more, experts have focused on improving the UI by changing the layout, colors, navigation, buttons and all the other objects on the screen (TV or PC).
After so many attempts and so many UI concepts, one might come to the conclusion that the key to improving consumer experience is not in layout or graphics, but rather in the underlying data that shapes and limits the UI.
Take genre. It’s been the sole movie categorization method for the past 15 years. How creative can one be with the consumer experience when using such a one-dimensional approach? Check the TV/VOD services of major cable/IPTV operators, movie machines like Apple TV and VUDU, and e-commerce sites like Netflix and Amazon. It is amazing to see that all these entertainment services look alike in terms of UI concept. It makes you wonder about their creativity. But I think it’s the best they can do as long as the only underlying data they have is genre language.
To build a disruptive UI, you need a disruptive concept for underlying data: a multi-dimensional approach that reflects the many aspects and elements of the content. At Jinni we call this the Movie Genome.
Popularity: 5% [?]
December 25th, 2008 at 9:21 am
This is why I use Windows media center for my DVR/IPTV needs. Beautifully designed interface. Cable operators should have licensed this technology but no we are stuck with something that basically looks like a hotel/motel TV system pay per view layout.
Add a reply
December 30th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
This is an area where I worked a lot in the last 5 years, and it’s a very tricky one.
There are two key issues with that:
1. Classification is always subjective, and the more you use basic categories that everybody uses, the less you get flamed by the users
2. The user is a slow learning entity when it comes to entertainment, especially on a TV set. Switching from a maybe stupid but traditional classification by category to a more original one requires education and time. In the meantime, that could represent a loss in sales.
I think your approach is clever and should work, provided that the way you classified movies in your database generates user trust, and is applicable to a multicultural public (ie a movie could be perceived differently in France or Spain than in the US). If it’s the case, I could introduce you to some existing or upcoming VOD platforms and see how it could fit.
Add a reply
December 31st, 2008 at 10:21 am
Thanks for your comments, which thoughtfully engage some of the same issues we’ve grappled with over time.
I agree that the Jinni approach takes some adjustment and even market education – though we’ve been pleasantly surprised by how quickly users start typing phrases in the Jinni search box that are far beyond the usual titles/people/genres. Genres are part of our Movie Genome, so users can start with the comfort of familiar categories if they choose.
The argument for the familiar genre categories might be, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” But my belief from a decade and more in IPTV is that it IS broken. People are at a loss to navigate large catalogs and so stick with short-tail titles that are less profitable for providers.
As you say, classification is subjective. Take Sci-fi. IMDb gives it to Spider-Man. Is it the same Sci-Fi as Alien? Is it Sci-Fi at all, or is it more of a Fantasy, which IMDb doesn’t mention at all? Spider-Man also gets Crime. Is it Crime like The Godfather? What would a user expect to find when looking for Crime films: Godfather or Spiderman? The “simple” classifications aren’t really so simple.
Our Genome comprises relatively objective aspects of story, filmmaking style and so on. Because we index titles by analyzing reviews and metadata, we include many people’s perspectives. As such, our Genome is not so subjective or culturally specific.
Thanks again for your thoughts – and I’d be pleased to be in touch.
Add a reply
April 21st, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Hey Mihai I think you are bang-on with your comments. Us users are sometimes slow learners and although a flashy UI may be pretty if it slows us down from the main objective of finding what we want to watch it will simply frustrate us. Education is critical and how do you do that when no one reads instructions anymore??? Great topic.
Add a reply
April 25th, 2011 at 12:13 am
Hi Yosi,
It’s an interesting approach towards categorization of movies. While it definitely makes for better matching of movie content with user preferences (movie personality), it definitely takes a bit of time to educate a larger group of people on how to use it.
As a hardcore movie watcher (yes, I do like to spend my free time watching movies!), it can be a waste of time renting a movie only to watch the first 15 - 20 minutes to realize it was a waste of time and money. It’s why I usually stick to the mainstream movies that have lots of reviews and comments for me to sift through.
Something like Jinni approach would be very useful in saving my time searching for movies I like.
Add a reply
May 2nd, 2011 at 2:30 am
UI has to be static as those are universal standards as suppose you got a brand new computer and and you have spent 10 years working on old custom computer, adjusting to the new computer might the a big head ache for you as they have changed their basic design and so on if you are some IT tech and has to handle many computers, then again this could be a head ache, mostly if will be a problem when you are in a hurry :) i guess its the same thing with the movies.
Thanks
Kevin
Add a reply