## 8 Results
### Results Hypothesis C (Synopsis Writing Task)  
Hypothesis 3: Users can get a quicker understanding of the content of video using RAAVE compared to the baseline player.  
Since the time allowed for users to consume the content was fixed at 20% of the video length. The comparison of user performance for synopsis writing task is done as:  
* Comparison of reviewer ratings to the synopsis produced by using both systems.
* The likelihood of a synopsis produced by RAAVE be given top rank by reviewers is higher compared to the Baseline.  
Table 9 shows the average score for each characteristic. The first row shows the overall scores i.e., the average of scores against all the summaries of 4 videos. The next four rows show the average score of the summaries of an individual video. The last two rows combine the average score of videos with and without visual aid. \"CF+PC\" shows the average score of [72; 73] since these two videos do not contain any visual aid and 'ED+TP' shows the average score of [69; 71].  
In addition to the rating of the user-produced summaries individually, reviewers were also asked to rank the summaries in order of their preference for 'ranked data analysis'. Users produced 6 summaries per video. For each video, reviewers assigned a rank between 1 and 6 to produced summaries (1 for most preferred and 6 to the least preferred).  
The ranked data analysis is performed using Mallows-Bradley Terry (MBT) method [79]. The MBT results in Table 9 follow the same pattern as in the question search task. The scores (\(\theta_{n}\) where \(n=6\) as there are six summaries ranked by a reviewer. \(\Theta_{MBT}=\{\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3},\theta_{4},\theta_{5},\theta_ {6}\}\) is the estimated score for each summary. A summary with a higher score is better than a summary with a lower score) are slightly better with the Baseline system overall. However, better results are achieved using RAAVE system with videos that contain visual aid and are relatively more technical and difficult to comprehend than the other two.  
Table 10 shows the results for each video. Est. column lists the estimated likelihood for the summary produced to be ranked no.1 by reviewers. For two of the videos CF and ED the RAAVE has a higher probability to produce the top summary while for the other two Baseline scored higher.  
Table 11 shows the overall likelihood for each system instead of individual summaries. It can be seen that the RAAVE has scored higher for both kinds of videos i.e., the likelihood that the top rank will be assigned to a summary produced using the RAAVE system by reviewers.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Readability and Understandability**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Informativeness**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Conciseness**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overall**} \\ \hline  & **RAAVE** & **Baseline** & **RAAVE** & **Baseline** & **RAAVE** & **Baseline** & **RAAVE** & **Baseline** \\ \hline All & 3.50 & 3.64 & 3.01 & 3.12 & 3.50 & 3.36 & 3.19 & 3.20 \\ \hline CF & 3.32 & 3.43 & 2.61 & 3.21 & 3.43 & 3.71 & 3.04 & 3.00 \\ \hline ED & 3.65 & 4.00 & 3.15 & 2.93 & 3.46 & 3.07 & 3.23 & 3.13 \\ \hline PC & 3.64 & 3.89 & 2.86 & 3.00 & 3.50 & 3.36 & 3.00 & 3.21 \\ \hline TP &