![Discussion
• Multiple assignments
– 81% were assigned to more than 1 cluster
– Are classes disjoint (e.g. function vs. affection)?
P4 mentioned a video he took on a mountain while
snowboarding. He recorded the video because he “took
it because [he loves] snowboard video tricks and [he
thinks] that it is very important to reconsider them to
improve [his own] technique”.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/presentation-mlux-120525042954-phpapp01/85/Why-did-you-record-this-video-14-320.jpg)
Why did you record this video?
- 1. Why did you record this video? An exploratory study on user intentions for video production. Mathias Lux* & Jochen Huber§ * Klagenfurt University, AT § Technische Universität Darmstadt, DE This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
- 2. Motivation • Novelty of intentions in MMIS – have not (yet) been investigated thoroughly • Hard, interdisciplinary problem – fuzzy, social, deals with people • Intentions are diverse – have potential for distinguishing between different user groups (cc) by bitzcelt, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitzcelt/
- 3. Goals • Find out if there is a taxonomy that can be used for MMIS. • Support or reject current approaches. • Find path towards a usable model supported by statistics. (cc) by jam343 http://www.flickr.com/photos/jam343
- 4. Roots • A taxonomy of web search (2002), A. Broder – navigational – “dublin wikipedia” – informational – “day tour dublin” – transactional – “book hotel in dublin” • Understanding user goals in web search (2004), D. Levinson & D. Rose – transactional -> resource – more fine-grained sub categories – informational > 60%
- 5. Roots • A classification scheme for user intentions in image search (2010), M. Lux, C. Kofler, O. Marques – 4th category: mental image – categories overlap
- 6. Photo production • The ubiquitous camera: An in-depth study of camera phone use (2005), T. Kindberg et al. – Affection vs. function – Social vs. individual
- 7. Video production • Video microblogging: your 12 seconds of fame (2010) N. Bornoe & L. Barkhuus – social collaboration (not individual) – self expression, entertainment, self representation • Practices in creating videos with mobile phones (2009), A. Puikkonen et al. – preserve moment of interest – sharing ”occasionally”, not by default
- 8. Methodology • Exploratory study – 20 participants (16m, 4f) – semi-structured interviews • Interviews – demographics & general usage – communication & recording habits • Instances – 48 situations were reported
- 9. Research Questions Using Kindberg’s taxonomy as a basis • Are Kindberg’s classes disjoint? – are there instances that indicate overlap? • Is a 2D space sufficient to describe video production intentions – need for other dimensions? (cc) by oberazzi, http://www.flickr.com/photos/oberazzi/
- 10. Analysis • Clustering of instances – similar instances go together – grouped manually – discussed grouping – multiple assignments possible (cc) by alastanton, http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton
- 11. Clustering • Preservation – Storing a scene to view it later • Sharing – Showing scenes to others • Affection – Capturing a scene due to emotion • Functional – Video is part of a job, hobby, etc. • Technical interest – E.g. trying out a camera • Other – Unknown or unmentioned intentions, etc.
- 12. Results • Nearly all of the videos (39 /48) were taken for sharing them. – 29 of the 39 instances: family, friends, colleagues, other closed groups. • Affection - 23 instances • Preservation - 19 instances
- 13. Results • Do class assignments co-occur? • Cross-tabulation – phi can be read like a correlation coefficient – -1 <= min <= phi <= max <= 1 – min, max due to different number of assignments
- 14. Discussion • Multiple assignments – 81% were assigned to more than 1 cluster – Are classes disjoint (e.g. function vs. affection)? P4 mentioned a video he took on a mountain while snowboarding. He recorded the video because he “took it because [he loves] snowboard video tricks and [he thinks] that it is very important to reconsider them to improve [his own] technique”.
- 15. Discussion P10 reported “First my friend is so good at singing and also charming and second he was about to leave the city and that was our last meeting. So I took the video to remember the night” • Ad-hoc affection vs. • Preservation
- 16. Discussion • Preservation opposite of sharing? – No correlation in our data (A) • Function & preservation go together? – maximum neg. correlation (B) B A
- 17. Conclusion • Intention classes not disjoint in the domain of video production • Kindberg’s taxonomy is not sufficient for video production • Preservation, sharing, affection & function are 4 valid classes to start with.
- 18. Future work • Our proposed structure is biased by – the small data set – the convenience sample – the questions asked • Collected a data set for photos – 1,309 photos + intentions of their photographers – mturk validation and QA of the survey results • Collection of a video data set • Application in domains (cc) by thevince, http://www.flickr.com/photos/thevince
- 19. Thanks … .. for your interest more on user intentions: http://tinyurl.com/mlux-itec check out LIRe CBIR library: http://www.semanticmetadata.net [email protected] (cc) http://www.jumpingbrain.org/