[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3625468.3647622acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

QoE Metrics for Interactivity in Video Conferencing Applications: Definition and Evaluation Methodology

Published: 17 April 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Video conferencing applications (VCAs) have become an indispensable tool for business, educational, and personal communications. There is, therefore, considerable interest in understanding and measuring the Quality of Experience (QoE) delivered by VCAs to their users. Video quality, one QoE measure, has received considerable attention in the literature. In this paper, we are concerned with another important aspect of VCA QoE, namely interactivity. We define this informally as the ability of a VCA to facilitate satisfying interaction among its users. Interactivity is primarily impacted by the media transmission latency among users which is, in turn, a function of network and application processing delays. Our goal in this work is to address two challenges in investigating interactivity-related QoE in VCAs. First, we propose a suite of meaningful quantifiable interactivity metrics, such as the proportion of silence time and rate of overlapping speech, that correlate well with conversational impairments and, hence, QoE perceptions. Second, we investigate scalable approaches for measuring these metrics. We develop a validated model for user behavior that enables realistic simulation of interactivity in VCA sessions. We also briefly consider an approach to measure interactivity metrics from packet traces. Through a set of experimental results, we demonstrate how our evaluation methodology provides a way for researchers, VCA service providers and network operators to perform large-scale investigations of how latency can interfere with user interactivity and impact VCA QoE.

References

[1]
Patrick Le Callet, Sebastian Moller, and Andrew Perkis. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience. European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), 2013.
[2]
International Telecommunications Union. P.10: Vocabulary for performance, quality of service and quality of experience, 2017. URL https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.10-201711-I/en.
[3]
Bart Jansen, Timothy Goodwin, Varun Gupta, Fernando Kuipers, and Gil Zussman. Performance Evaluation of WebRTC-Based Video Conferencing. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 45(3):56--68, 2018.
[4]
Hyunseok Chang, Matteo Varvello, Fang Hao, and Sarit Mukherjee. Can You See Me Now? A Measurement Study of Zoom, Webex, and Meet. In Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2021.
[5]
Rohan Kumar, Dhruv Nagpal, Vinayak Naik, and Dipanjan Chakraborty. Comparison of Popular Video Conferencing Apps Using Client-Side Measurements on Different Backhaul Networks. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Protocol Design for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing, 2022.
[6]
Insoo Lee, Jinsung Lee, Kyunghan Lee, Dirk Grunwald, and Sangtae Ha. Demystifying Commercial Video Conferencing Applications. In Proc. ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2021.
[7]
Kyle MacMillan, Tarun Mangla, James Saxon, and Nick Feamster. Measuring the Performance and Network Utilization of Popular Video Conferencing Applications. In Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2021.
[8]
Constantin Sander, Ike Kunze, Klaus Wehrle, and Jan Rüth. Video Conferencing and Flow-Rate Fairness: A First Look at Zoom and the Impact of Flow-Queuing AQM. In Proc. Passive and Active Measurement (PAM), pages 3--19, 2021.
[9]
Jia He, Mostafa Ammar, and Ellen Zegura. A Measurement-Derived Functional Model For the Interaction Between Congestion Control And QoE In Video Conferencing. In Proc. Passive and Active Measurement, 2023.
[10]
Taveesh Sharma, Tarun Mangla, Arpit Gupta, Junchen Jiang, and Nick Feamster. Estimating WebRTC Video QoE Metrics Without Using Application Headers. In Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2023.
[11]
Jingxi Xu and Benjamin W. Wah. Exploiting Just-Noticeable Difference of Delays for Improving Quality of Experience in Video Conferencing. In Proc. ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, 2013.
[12]
Jesse Frey, Jaden Pieper, and Tim Thompson. Mission Critical Voice QoE Mouth-to-Ear Latency Measurement Methods. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 8206, 2018.
[13]
E.A. Isaacs and J.C Tang. What video can and cannot do for collaboration: A case study. Multimedia Systems, 2:63--73, 1994.
[14]
Abigail J. Sellen. Remote conversations: The effects of mediating talk with technology. Human-Computer Interactions, 10(4):401--444, 1995.
[15]
Robert S. Fish, Robert E. Kraut, Robert W. Root, and Ronald E. Rice. Evaluating Video as a Technology for Informal Communication. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1992.
[16]
Andrew F. Monk and Caroline Gale. A Look Is Worth a Thousand Words: Full Gaze Awareness in Video-Mediated Conversation. Discourse Processes, 33(3): 257-278, 2002.
[17]
David Grayson and Lynne Coventry. The Effects of Visual Proxemic Information in Video Mediated Communication. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(3):30--39, 1998.
[18]
Rick van der Kleij, Jan Maarten Schraagen, Peter Werkhoven, and Carsten K. W. De Dreu. How Conversations Change Over Time in Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Communication. Small Group Research, 40(4):355--381, 2009.
[19]
Hiroaki Kawashima, Takeshi Nishikawa, and Takashi Matsuyama. Visual Filler: Facilitating Smooth Turn-Taking in Video Conferencing with Transmission Delay. In Proc. ACM Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2008.
[20]
Sebastian Egger, Raimund Schatz, and Stefan Scherer. It takes two to tango -assessing the impact of delay on conversational interactivity on perceived speech quality. In Proc. Interspeech, 2010.
[21]
Catherine Lai, Jean Carletta, and Steve Renals. Modelling Participant Affect in Meetings with Turn-Taking Features. In Proc. Workshop on Affective Social Speech Signals, 2013.
[22]
Marwin Schmitt, Simon Gunkel, Pablo Cesar, and Dick Bulterman. Asymmetric delay in video-mediated group discussions. In International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2014.
[23]
Katrin Schoenenberg, Alexander Raake, and Judith Koeppe. Why are you so slow? - Misattribution of transmission delay to attributes of the conversation partner at the far-end. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(5): 477-487, 2014.
[24]
Marwin Schmitt, Judith Redi, Dick Bulterman, and Pablo S. Cesar. Towards Individual QoE for Multiparty Videoconferencing. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 20(7):1781--1795, 2018.
[25]
Shrikant Garg, Ayushi Srivastava, Mashhuda Glencross, and Ojaswa Sharma. A Study of the Effects of Network Latency on Visual Task Performance in Video Conferencing. In Proc. ACM Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2022.
[26]
E. Geelhoed, A. Parker, D Williams, and M. Groen. Effects of Latency on Telepresence. Technical Reports, HPL-2009-120, Hewlett-Packard Labs, 2009.
[27]
Momoko Nakatani, Yoko Ishii, Ai Nakane, Chihiro Takayama, and Fumiya Akasaka. Improving Satisfaction in Group Dialogue: A Comparative Study of Face-to-Face and Online Meetings. In Proc. Human-Computer Interaction. Design and User Experience Case Studies, 2021.
[28]
Yang Xu, Chenguang Yu, Jingjiang Li, and Yong Liu. Video Telephony for End-Consumers: Measurement Study of Google+, IChat, and Skype. In Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2012.
[29]
Tarun Mangla, Emir Halepovic, Mostafa Ammar, and Ellen Zegura. eMIMIC: Estimating HTTP-Based Video QoE Metrics from Encrypted Network Traffic. In 2018 Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA), 2018.
[30]
Zoom. Zoom: Architected for Reliability, 2019. URL https://explore.zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom_Global_Infrastructure.pdf.
[31]
Zoom. Here's How Zoom Provides Industry-Leading Video Capacity, 2022. URL https://blog.zoom.us/zoom-can-provide-increase-industry-leading-video-capacity/.
[32]
Mozilla. Signaling and video calling, 2023. URL https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API/Signaling_and_video_calling.
[33]
Henning Schulzrinne, Stephen Casner, Ron Frederick, and Van Jacobson. RFC 3550: RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications, 2003. URL https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3550.
[34]
International Telecommunications Union. H.264: Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services, 2016. URL https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-H.264-201602-S!!PDF-E&type=items.
[35]
Google Developer. Core Technologies: VP9 Overview, 2023. URL https://developers.google.com/media/vp9.
[36]
Xiph. Vorbis audio compression, 2016. URL https://xiph.org/vorbis/.
[37]
Opus. Opus Interactive Audio Codec, 2023. URL https://opus-codec.org/.
[38]
J. M. Valin, K. Vos, and T. Terriberry. RFC 6716: Definition of the Opus Audio Codec, 2012. URL https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6716.
[39]
W3C. Scalable Video Coding (SVC) Extension for WebRTC, 2023. URL https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc-svc/.
[40]
Chromium Source. Video coding in WebRTC, 2023. URL https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/master/modules/video_coding/g3doc/index.md.
[41]
Heiko Schwarz, Detlev Marpe, and Thomas Wiegand. Overview of the Scalable Video Coding Extension of the H.264/AVC Standard. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 17(9):1103--1120, 2007.
[42]
Peter Amon, Haoyu Li, Andreas Hutter, Daniele Renzi, and Stefano Battista. Scalable Video Coding and Transcoding. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics, 2008.
[43]
Jitsi. Selective forwarding unit implementation of the jitsi videobridge, 2022. URL https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-videobridge/blob/master/doc/sfu.md#bandwidth-estimations.
[44]
Jitsi. Github repository, 2022. URL https://github.com/jitsi.
[45]
M.J. Riley, I.E.G. Richardson, and B. Kohler. Low latency video communications over high bandwidth-delay networks using FEC. In Proc. IEE Colloquium on Time Critical Data Communications, 1994.
[46]
Ralf M. Schreier and Albrecht Rothermel. A Latency Analysis on H.264 Video Transmission Systems. In Proc. Digest of Technical Papers - International Conference on Consumer Electronics, 2008.
[47]
Mihir Mody, Pramod Swami, and Pavan Shastry. Ultra-low latency video codec for video conferencing. In IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies, 2014.
[48]
Kevin M. McNeill, Mingkuan Liu, and Jeffrey J. Rodriguez. An Adaptive Jitter Buffer Play-Out Scheme to Improve VoIP Quality in Wireless Networks. In Proc. IEEE Military Communications Conference, 2006.
[49]
Gaetano Carlucci, Luca de Cicco, Stefan Holmer, and Saverio Mascolo. Analysis and Design of the Google Congestion Control for Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC). In Proc. ACM International Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys), 2016.
[50]
Paul T. Brady. Effects of transmission delay on conversational behavior on echo-free telephone circuits. The Bell System Technical Journal, 50(1):115--134, 1971.
[51]
Brid O'Conaill, Steve Whittaker, and Sylvia Wilbur. Conversations over Video Conferences: An Evaluation of the Spoken Aspects of Video-Mediated Communication. Human-Computer Interactions, 8(4):389--428, 1993.
[52]
S. Basu. A linked-HMM model for robust voicing and speech detection. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003.
[53]
Tanzeem Choudhury and Sumit Basu. Modeling Conversational Dynamics as a Mixed-Memory Markov Process. In Proc. International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2004.
[54]
Karen Ruhleder and Brigitte Jordan. Co-Constructing Non-Mutual Realities: Delay-Generated Trouble in Distributed Interaction. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10:113--138, 2001.
[55]
Lucas Seuren, Joseph Wherton, Trisha Greenhalgh, and Sara Shaw. Whose turn is it anyway? Latency and the organization of turn-taking in video-mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 172:63--78, 2021.
[56]
Lawrence K. Saul and Michael I. Jordan. Mixed Memory Markov Models: Decomposing Complex Stochastic Processes As Mixtures Of Simpler Ones. Machine Learning, 37:75--86, 1999.
[57]
University of Edinburgh. AMI Corpus, 2006. URL https://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/ami/corpus/.
[58]
Emir Halepovic, Majid Ghaderi, and Carey Williamson. Multimedia application performance on a WiMAX network. In Proc. SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking, 2009.
[59]
Oliver Michel, Satadal Sengupta, Hyojoon Kim, Ravi Netravali, and Jennifer Rexford. Enabling Passive Measurement of Zoom Performance in Production Networks. In Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022.
[60]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standards for Local Area Networks: Carrier Sense Multiple Access With Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications. ANSI/IEEE Std 802.3-1985, 1985.
[61]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard for Ethernet. IEEE Std 802.3-2022 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.3-2018), 2022.
[62]
Yih-Chiao Liu and G. Wise. Performance of a CSMA/CD Protocol for Local Area Networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 5(6):948--955, 1987.
[63]
Chuan Heng Foh and M. Zukerman. Performance comparison of CSMA/RI and CSMA/CD with BEB. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2001.
[64]
E. Wong and Chang-Joon Chae. CSMA/CD-based Ethernet over passive optical network for delivery of voice-over-IP traffic. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the IEEE Lasers and Electro-Optics Society, 2003.
[65]
Konstantinos Voulgaris, Athanasios Gkelias, Imran Ashraf, Mischa Dohler, and A. H. Aghvami. Throughput Analysis of Wireless CSMA/CD for a Finite User Population. In Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 2006.
[66]
Tao Ma, John Holden, and Rostislav Serota. Distribution of human response times. Complexity, 21:61--69, 2016.
[67]
Daniel Zagar and Stephanie Mathey. When WORDS with Higher-frequency Neighbours Become Words with No Higher-frequency Neighbour (Or How to Undress the Neighbourhood Frequency Effect). Reading as a Perceptual Process, pages 23--46, 2000.
[68]
Sandesh Dhawaskar Sathyanarayana, Kyunghan Lee, Dirk Grunwald, and Sangtae Ha. Converge: QoE-Driven Multipath Video Conferencing over WebRTC. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conference, 2023.
[69]
Raimund Schatz, Tobias Hoßfeld, and Pedro Casas. Passive YouTube QoE Monitoring for ISPs. In Proc. International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing, 2012.
[70]
Vengatanathan Krishnamoorthi, Niklas Carlsson, Emir Halepovic, and Eric Petajan. BUFFEST: Predicting Buffer Conditions and Real-Time Requirements of HTTP(S) Adaptive Streaming Clients. In Proc. ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems, 2017.
[71]
Matteo Varvello, Hyunseok Chang, and Yasir Zaki. Performance Characterization of Videoconferencing in the Wild. In Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)uvgComm: Open Software for Low-Latency Multi-party Video CommunicationProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia10.1145/3664647.3685514(11214-11217)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Effects of Delay on Nonverbal Behavior and Interpersonal Coordination in Video Conferencing2024 IEEE 26th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP)10.1109/MMSP61759.2024.10743300(1-6)Online publication date: 2-Oct-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
MMSys '24: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference
April 2024
557 pages
ISBN:9798400704123
DOI:10.1145/3625468
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 April 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

MMSys '24
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 176 of 530 submissions, 33%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)492
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)78
Reflects downloads up to 28 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)uvgComm: Open Software for Low-Latency Multi-party Video CommunicationProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia10.1145/3664647.3685514(11214-11217)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Effects of Delay on Nonverbal Behavior and Interpersonal Coordination in Video Conferencing2024 IEEE 26th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP)10.1109/MMSP61759.2024.10743300(1-6)Online publication date: 2-Oct-2024

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media