# An Ontology for Spatio-Temporal Media Management and an Interactive Application
## 7 Evaluation of Web3602
### Online Survey
#### 7.1.3 Results  
Figure 19 presents the online survey results. In this figure, the center score of the 7-point Likert scale (i.e., 4), representing the middle rating, is placed at the origin 0 of the horizontal axis. The response scores 5, 6, and 7, which express high ratings, extend out in the positive direction. The response scores 3, 2, and 1, which represent low ratings, extend out in the negative direction. The results of all questions showed that the number of high evaluation score exceeded those of the low evaluation scores, indicating that the quality of the interactive viewing experience of 3D video and audio provided by the Web3602 was generally good. Figures 20-23 summarize the evaluations for the different operating environments. Table 2 lists the mean and \(p\)-values of the evaluation values for each environment, organized by question item. The \(p\)-values were calculated by performing a t-test on the evaluation results for each environment. The \(p\)-value is 1.00 when the mean scores of the two environments are identical. Generally, a \(p\)-value of 0.05 or less is considered a significant difference. In the present study, there were differences in the mean values in some cases, but none were considered significant because all \(p\)-values were larger than 0.05. In Figure 20, we compared the types of devices used by the subjects, roughly classified into PC and tablet/smartphone. The mean scores for the tablet/smartphone group were lower than those for the PC group for all questions. Nevertheless, even the lowest Q3 has a \(p\)-value of 0.10, which is not a significant difference. Although the results indicate said that the PC group tended to be rated higher overall, the \(p\)-value was 0.10, even for the lowest Q3, and hence this is not a significant difference. Some open-ended responses from the tablet/smartphone group indicated that the application rendering process was insufficient, suggesting that the performance may have been inadequate compared with PCs. Another \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l r r r r r r r} \hline  & **N** & **Q1** & **Q2** & **Q3** & **Q4** & **Q5** & **Q6** \\ \hline PC & 17 & 5.77 & 5.12 & 5.53 & 5.18 & 6.18 & 5.65 \\ Smartphone & 14 & 5.00 & 4.79 & 4.43 & 5.29 & 5.86 & 5.14 \\ \hline  & \(p\)-value & 0.19 & 0.57 & 0.10 & 0.85 & 0.49 & 0.38 \\ \hline iOS & 9 & 5.00 & 4.56 & 4.67 & 5.44 & 5.67 & 5.56 \\ Android & 5 & 5.00 & 5.20 & 4.00 & 5.00 & 6.20 & 4.40 \\ \hline  & \(p\)-value & 1.00 & 0.61 & 0.54 & 0.69 & 0.38 & 0.33 \\ \hline Gyro & 16 & 5.31 & 5.06 & 4.63 & 5.19 & 6.06 & 5.19 \\ NoGyro & 16 & 5.53 & 4.87 & 5.47 & 5.27 & 6.00 & 5.67 \\ \hline  & \(p\)-value & 0.69 & 0.72 & 0.19 & 0.89 & 0.90 & 0.39 \\ \hline Headphone & 25 & 5.40 & 5.08 & 5.08 & 5.28 & 6.20 & 5.64 \\ No Headphones & 6 & 5.50 & 4.50 & 4.83 & 5.00 & 5.33 & 4.50 \\ \hline  & \(p\)-value & 0.87 & 0.24 & 0.70 & 0.70 & 0.29 & 0.16 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: List of mean evaluation scores and \(p\)-values for different operating environments. Figure 19: Percentage of survey responses in the online survey. reason for the low evaluation may be the poor operability of the tap operation on the smartphone device with a small screen size compared with the mouse operation on the PC when switching the audio visualization object on and off. In Figure 21, we compared the differences in the evaluation according to the OS for the tablet/smartphone group and found no apparent difference between iOS and Android. Meanwhile, Figure 22 shows a comparison of the spatio--temporal-related ratings with and without the gyro sensor. We expected that using the gyro sensor would improve the evaluation of interactive operation in question Q4, however, no clear difference was observed, and a trend toward lower evaluation was noticeable. On terminals with gyro sensors, Web360\({}^{2}\) automatically reflects the orientation of the device in the direction of the line of sight.