Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Comparison of mobile QoE: an unsupervised field study in Argentina and Cuba
Comparación de QoE móvil, estudio de campo no supervisado en Argentina y Cuba
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v89n220.97894Palabras clave:
quality of experience, quality of service, mobile, metrics, field study. (en)calidad de experiencia, calidad de servicio, móvil, cargas paramétricas, estudio de campo. (es)
Descargas
This article presents the findings of an unsupervised field study conducted over 31 days in Argentina and Cuba in order to explore mobile QoE. We also analyzed the correspondence between the objective observations and users’ opinions to identify contextual conditions that could have influenced the study’s results. Using their own mobile devices in everyday contexts, 95 users from Argentina and Cuba interacted with CovidInfo app, thereby recording values for eight objective metrics as well as their opinions. The total data set collected consisted of 41,144 records. Analysis of the CovidInfo application yielded positive QoE results in both countries, as 88% and 70% of the objective metrics in Argentina and Cuba, respectively, were optimal. The main difference between the two countries is the type of connection: In Argentina, WiFi networks are predominant, while the trend in Cuba is mobile data connections.
Este artículo presenta los hallazgos de un estudio de campo no supervisado realizado durante 31 días en Argentina y Cuba con el fin de explorar la QoE móvil. También analizamos la correspondencia entre las observaciones objetivas y las opiniones de los usuarios para identificar las condiciones contextuales que podrían haber influido en los resultados del estudio. Utilizando sus propios dispositivos móviles en contextos cotidianos, 95 usuarios de Argentina y Cuba interactuaron con la app CovidInfo, registrando así los valores de ocho métricas objetivas, así como sus opiniones. El conjunto total de datos recopilados consistió en 41.144 registros. El análisis de la aplicación CovidInfo arrojó resultados positivos de QoE en ambos países, ya que el 88% y el 70% de las métricas objetivas en Argentina y Cuba, respectivamente, fueron óptimas. La principal diferencia entre los dos países es el tipo de conexión: en Argentina predominan las redes WiFi, mientras que la tendencia en Cuba son las conexiones de datos móviles.
Referencias
Hefeeda, M. and Hsu, C.H., Mobile video streaming in modern wireless networks. In: MM’10 - Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia 2010 International Conference. ACM Press. New York, USA, 2010, pp. 1779-1780. DOI: 10.1145/1873951.1874368
Luo, H. and Shyu, M., Quality of service provision in mobile multimedia - a survey. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 1(1), pp. 1-15, 2011. DOI: 10.1186/2192-1962-1-5
GSM Association. GSMA - The mobile economy Latin America and the Caribbean 2016 - GSMA Latin America. [online]. 2016. Available at: https://www.gsma.com/latinamerica/resources/mobile-economy-latin-america-caribbean-2016.
GSM Association. GSMA - The Latin America and the Caribbean 2017 - GSMA Latin America. [online]. 2017. Available at: https://www.gsma.com/latinamerica/resources/mobile-economy-latin-america-caribbean-2017.
ITU-T. Definition of Quality of Experience (QoE). International Telecommunication Union, 2007.
Ickin, S., Quality of experience on Smartphone: network, application, and energy perspectives. PhD Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Suecia, 2015.
Kim, H.J., Lee, D.H., Lee, J.M., Lee, K.H., Lyu, W. and Choi, S.G., The QoE evaluation method through the QoS-QoE correlation model. In: 2008 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Networked Computing and Advanced Information Management. 2008, pp. 719-725. DOI: 10.1109/NCM.2008.202
Chen, Q.A., Luo, H., Rosen, S., Mao, Z.M., Iyer, K., Hui, J., Sontineni, K. and Lau, K., QoE Doctor: diagnosing mobile App QoE with automated UI control and cross-layer analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on nternet Measurement Conference - IMC ’14. Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2014, pp. 151-164. DOI: 10.1145/2663716.2663726
Hosek, J., Vajsar, P., Nagy, L., Ries, M., Galinina, O., Andreev, S., Koucheryavy, Y., Sulc, Z., Hais, P. and Penizek, R., Predicting user QoE satisfaction in current mobile networks. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications, ICC 2014. 2014, pp. 1088-1093. IEEE Computer Society. DOI: 10.1109/ICC.2014.6883466
Casas, P., Schatz, R., Wamser, F., Seufert, M. and Irmer, R., Exploring QoE in cellular networks: how much bandwidth do you need for popular smartphone apps?. In: AllThingsCellular 2015 - Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on All Things Cellular: operations, applications and challenges. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. New York, USA, 2015, pp. 13-18. DOI: 10.1145/2785971.2785978
Hektner, J.M., Schmidt, J.A. and Csikszentmihalyi, M., Experience sampling method: measuring the quality of everyday life. SAGE Publications, 2007. DOI: 10.4135/9781412984201
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N. and Stone, A.A., A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), pp. 1776-1780, 2004. DOI: 10.1126/science.1103572
Streijl, R.C., Winkler, S. and Hands, D.S., Mean Opinion Score (MOS) revisited: methods and applications, limitations and alternatives. Multimedia Systems, 22(2), pp. 213-227, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s00530-014-0446-1
Nawrocki, P. and Sliwa, A., Quality of experience in the context of mobile applications. Computer Science, 17(3), art. 371, 2016. DOI: 10.7494/csci.2016.17.3.371
Collazo-Garcia, A. and Casas, S., Quality of experience in mobile applications: a systematic mapping of metrics and tools. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 14(08), pp. 126-139, 2020. DOI: 10.3991/ijim.v14i08.12819
Square. Retrofit: a type-safe HTTP client for Android and the JVM. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://github.com/square/retrofit.
PhilJay MPAndroidChart. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://github.com/PhilJay/MPAndroidChart.
Lawrence W.J., Protocol inter-worked ping mechanism. Patent US8279759B1. United State. [online]. 2012. Available at https://patents.google.com/patent/US8279759
Android Developers. ConnectivityManager. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/net/ConnectivityManager.
Android Developers. TelephonyManager. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/telephony/TelephonyManager.
Android Developers. ActivityManager.MemoryInfo. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/ ActivityManager.MemoryInfo
Android Developers. Build. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Build.
Firebase. Firebase Realtime Database. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://firebase.google.com/docs/database.
Back4App. Welcome to Back4App Documentation - Back4app Guides. [online]. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.back4app.com /docs/get-started/welcome.
Enriquez, J.G. and Casas, S.I., Usabilidad en aplicaciones móviles. Informes científicos técnicos - UNPA, 5(2), pp. 25-47, 2014. DOI: 10.22305/ict-unpa.v5i2.71
Voigt-Antons, J.N., Hobfeld, T., Egger-Lampl, S., Schatz, R. and Moller, S., User experience of Web browsing-the relationship of usability and quality of experience. In: 2018 10th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience, QoMEX 2018. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. 2018. DOI: 10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463383
Boz, E., Finley, B., Oulasvirta, A., Kilkki, K. and Manner, J., Mobile QoE prediction in the field. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 59, art. 101039. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2019.101039
Seufert, M., Wehner, N., Wamser, F., Casas, P., D’Alconzo, A. and Tran-Gia, P., Unsupervised QoE field study for mobile YouTube video streaming with YoMoApp. In: 2017 9th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience, QoMEX 2017. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. 2017. DOI: 10.1109/QoMEX.2017.7965688
Schatz, R. and Egger, S., Vienna surfing: assessing mobile broadband quality in the field. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Measurements Up the Stack, W-MUST’11. ACM Press. New York, USA, 2011, pp. 19-24. DOI: 10.1145/2018602.2018608
Cómo citar
IEEE
ACM
ACS
APA
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
El autor o autores de un artículo aceptado para publicación en cualquiera de las revistas editadas por la facultad de Minas cederán la totalidad de los derechos patrimoniales a la Universidad Nacional de Colombia de manera gratuita, dentro de los cuáles se incluyen: el derecho a editar, publicar, reproducir y distribuir tanto en medios impresos como digitales, además de incluir en artículo en índices internacionales y/o bases de datos, de igual manera, se faculta a la editorial para utilizar las imágenes, tablas y/o cualquier material gráfico presentado en el artículo para el diseño de carátulas o posters de la misma revista.
