Increasingly, we use mobile applications and services in our daily life activities, to support our needs for information, communication or leisure. However, user acceptance of a mobile application depends on at least two conditions; the application's perceived experience and the appropriateness of the application to the user's context and needs. Yet, we have a weak understanding of a mobile user's Quality of Experience (QoE) and the factors influencing it. This paper presents 4 week long, 29 Android phone users study, where we collected both QoE and underlying network's Quality of Service (QoS) measures through a combination of user, application and network data on the user's phones. We aimed to derive and improve the understanding of users' QoE for a set of widely used mobile applications in users' natural environments and different daily context. We present data acquired in the study and discuss implications for mobile applications design

No abstract

No abstract

International audienceTraditionally, audio quality and video quality are evaluated separately in subjective tests. Best practices within the quality assessment community were developed before many modern mobile audiovisual devices and services came into use, such as internet video, smart phones, tablets and connected televisions. These devices and services raise unique questions that require jointly evaluating both the audio and the video within a subjective test. However, audiovisual subjective testing is a relatively under-explored field. In this paper, we address the question of determining the most suitable way to conduct audiovisual subjective testing on a wide range of audiovisual quality. Six laboratories from four countries conducted a systematic study of audiovisual subjective testing. The stimuli and scale were held constant across experiments and labs; only the environment of the subjective test was varied. Some subjective tests were conducted in controlled environments and some in public environments (a cafeteria, patio or hallway). The audiovisual stimuli spanned a wide range of quality. Results show that these audiovisual subjective tests were highly repeatable from one laboratory and environment to the next. The number of subjects was the most important factor. Based on this experiment, 24 or more subjects are recommended for Absolute Category Rating (ACR) tests. In public environments, 35 subjects were required to obtain the same Student.s t-test sensitivity. The second most important variable was individual differences between subjects. Other environmental factors had minimal impact, such as language, country, lighting, background noise, wall color, and monitor calibration. Analyses indicate that Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) are relative rather than absolute. Our analyses show that the results of experiments done in pristine, laboratory environments are highly representative of those devices in actual use, in a typical user environment

No abstract