Workshops

How can characteristics from leisure activities and games be translated and implemented into the design of consumer products to create engaging, highly enjoyable interactions. Examples of consumer devices that are considered to be enjoyable, will be analyzed. Furthermore, means to evaluate the enjoyability of products and services will be discussed.

WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION

Taking fun seriously

Traditionally, the main human factors concern in the design of products is usability, i.e., is the product easy and comfortable to use, safe, effective, efficient, and easy to learn. Obviously, also for consumer products these performance criteria are important, especially in the case of safety, comfort, effectiveness and learnability. However, others are not: maximizing efficiency, for example, is for consumer products much less an issue than it is for work-related devices. And, especially for consumer products with an entertainment and leisure function, other requirements need to be considered as well: using such a device should be enjoyable, engaging, and the device should be appealing. In short: interacting with the product should be an “experience”. So, next to ease of use, joy of use should be considered as a product requirement. (Of course, feelings of joy when using a device will quickly evaporate if one tries something and nothing happens - so for joy of use to be possible, ease of use needs to be considered first.)

More and more this is being recognized by researchers in the field of Human-Computer-Interaction and User System Design (e.g., Norman, 2002); even complete conferences are now dedicated to this topic (e.g., Helander, Khalid & Tam, 2001). However, despite this growing interest in pleasure and fun as vital aspects in software and product design, a thorough understanding of what enjoyability in the context of product use means, and how products should be designed to achieve this objective, is lacking at the moment.

Even though enjoyability might at present not be a well-defined concept, several studies so far indicate that it could well be related to intrinsic motivation - that is, activities that people engage in for their own sake, and not because there is a reward waiting (e.g., Malone and Lepper, 1987; Rieber, Smith & Noah, 1998). But what then makes a particular situation or activity intrinsically motivating to an individual? In this context, the concept of flow is often mentioned. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) was the first one to coin the term ‘optimal experience' or flow , referring to feelings that his subjects reported to have experienced while involved in leisure and work activities. He postulated that an individual achieves a sense of flow , when he is “stretched to his limits” in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile. Flow is characterized by a feeling of being in control, by highly focused attention, and by an adequate match between challenge and skill, resulting in an intense state of joy, and emotional involvement in an activity for its own sake.

Whereas Csikszentmihalyi studied for instance mountaineers and surgeons – individuals involved in rather high-profile activities – Malone and Lepper (1987) looked into the more commonly practiced activities of playing (computer) games. Their objective was to learn what makes computer games enjoyable and intrinsically motivating to use, with the aim to apply the knowledge thus gained in the development of educational software. They postulate that users enjoy games when a number of conditions have been met. First of all, the game should offer the user appropriate challenge , i.e., the task difficulty should match the user's current skill level, or rather be just a little bit demanding so the user is required to put extra effort into the game.

Though Malone and Lepper do not explicitly state this, it is likely that the match between demands and abilities should not just be optimal objectively, but also in the eye of the user –the subjective or perceived match. That is, the user should feel confident in using and controlling the device, and feel successful in accomplishing goals. Appropriate challenge also asks for the game to have a goal; attainment of the goal should be feasible, but also somewhat uncertain – goals that one will attain for certain are much less motivating to pursue. Of course, the users should get performance feedback in order to determine how far they are from reaching this goal. Furthermore, the game should raise the user's curiosity , by providing novel stimuli or situations, and by not making all elements in the game obvious and explicit.

Another important element is that of control ; the willingness of the user to continue with the game is likely to be increased when the user has control over what is happening, and is for example allowed to influence the pacing or complexity level, or to control other aspects of the game that are meaningful and important to the user. Fantasy has to do with the scene in which the activity is embedded; this should aim to intrigue the user, and provide an attractive setting. Fantasy elements should not only appeal to the emotional needs of the user (such as being able to identify with the characters in the game, or feel attracted to the characters and other elements in the game); these elements could also provide relevant metaphors or analogies, that can help the user to figure out the important issues in the game.

Three more elements have to be considered according to Malone and Lepper when more than one player is involved. The first one is co-operation , which reflects the social desire to work with and co-operate with others. The second one is competition , the emotional desire to compete with others and compare one's performance with that of others. Finally, recognition is about the social need of being recognized and appreciated for one's skills, efforts, or knowledge.

Csikszentmihalyi and Malone and Lepper do not address issues such as aesthetics, although this very likely will also be an important factor in the perceived overall enjoyability of a product - attractive things are generally seen as more appealing in other respects as well, or to put it more succinctly: ‘pretty things are more fun'. Studies have indicated that attractive products appear to work more smoothly and easily (Norman, 2002).

Why again consider joy of use?

Of course, for consumer appliances with an entertainment-related function (e.g. music, video, and web- based applications) looking into ways to create an enjoyable interaction comes with the territory. Furthermore, considering joy of use can be important in cases of products that are targeted at particular user groups. Now, apart from wanting to provide users an enjoyable experience, what could be other reasons to consider joy of use in products? The motivational aspects are the keys here. Malone and Lepper for example proposed that if game-like features could be implemented in digital learning environments, one could capitalize on their intrinsically motivating powers, to stimulate and encourage the users of these environments to continue with the program.

Similarly, one could apply such features in the design of (complex) devices, to motivate users to explore the capabilities of the system, and in a playful way learn how to use the system. By making learning playful, be it in an educational context, or in the context of learning how to operate a consumer device, the users are likely to be more motivated to develop new skills, explore new domains, and learn new things. Play, in this view, is not just idle time passing, but also an instrument in acquiring new knowledge and skills (Rieber et al., 1998). Similarly, enjoyability should not be seen as just merely a nice, but not essential product requirement: usability criteria are important to realize a product that can be used - ensuring enjoyability in a product will make it more likely that this product actually will be used as well.

Discussion

To summarize, if we want to understand which factors could contribute to an enjoyable interaction with devices, several other domains seem to provide useful insights and ideas. Examples are games and leisure activities (Malone & Lepper, 1987; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). These examples and studies appear to have some intriguing suggestions for the design of not just ordinary products, but for true experiences. However, what still remains to be answered is how these suggestions could be translated into concrete design guidelines for consumer products and services. Also, how can we determine during the design process whether or not these goals of engagement and enjoyability have been reached? So far, studies on enjoyability have focussed on analyzing what makes an activity, or interaction with a product a fun experience, rather than on applying the knowledge gained in these analyses in the design of new products. However, the ultimate goal of such analyses should be to derive knowledge in some form (heuristics, guidelines, models, et cetera) that can be successfully applied when designing new systems.

Several other issues are also still open:

• The lessons that can be learned from games, movies and theatre: can they be generally applied to all types of situations? For some products, enjoyability might not be a suitable or desirable criterion: should a coffee maker provide a challenge to its user, or better not? And operating a microwave oven might perhaps result in an enjoyable experience - the prepared meal, but should the interaction with the device itself be entertaining, or should this primarily be functional and without much hassles?
• It is not easy to translate the lessons from e.g. the games domain into concrete measures: for example, how much challenge is required for an optimal result, or how should exploration be implemented? Also, the relative importance of the different characteristics is not clear: is challenge more important than say, for example, fantasy? And how are cognitive challenges appreciated compared to physical challenges? Is there possibly an optimal balance between the two?
• How important exactly active involvement is for enjoyment is still an open question. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990) leisure experiences such as watching television do hardly ever result in an optimal experience, or flow . But there are, of course, many examples of leisure experiences (e.g. certain movies) that are considered to be highly engaging and enjoyable.
• Furthermore, the state of the user is likely to be important in the appreciation of interaction with a device or activity - what is seen as fun in the afternoon, might not at all be appreciated late at night. So, enjoyability is not simply a property or characteristic of a product, but depends also on personal characteristics of the user, and on the context. How should designers deal with this?
• Will the appreciation change with experience? That is, what is seen as fun to use in the beginning, will that still be considered to be enjoyable after having gained more experience with the device? From games it is known that one can promote from novice level to more expert levels, in order to keep the game challenging and interesting.
• What is the best approach to measure fun? In the Human Factors domain, determining the usability of a product in its classical meaning (effectiveness, efficiency, learnability, etc.) can be ‘rather easily' achieved by observing users working with products, measuring performance through countable parameters such as time-on-task, number of errors, time-to-repair, time-to-learn task up to certain level, et cetera. However, how does one ‘count' enjoyment?

We hope to discuss these and other issues pertaining to the theme during the workshop.

One example of an enjoyable product/service

We would like to end with a description of a fascinating example of a product/service that is found highly enjoyable by many, but which is, from a Human Factors point of view, also a bit of a paradox. It is interesting to realize that poor usability could be a challenge: a poor user interface might become an intriguing problem to users, motivating them to master the device, and find out – as if it were a puzzle or riddle – how to operate it. One could think, for example of Short Message Service (SMS), not exactly a shining example of usability. However, despite the usability problems – or perhaps due to the usability problems (in combination, of course with undeniable user benefits), SMS has become an unexpected but huge success. SMS is seen as fun to use, despite the currently available tools for sending these messages, which can hardly be considered to be the most ‘ergonomic' way of sending messages. However, for the users, ergonomics is not the issue; the key issue to them is that it is a fun way to communicate with friends. And apparently, it is also stimulating to create and use ‘short-hand' notations for longer, often-used words (which now start to appear in other writings as well), and to master the quick typing of messages with one hand on the tiny keyboard with only about 12 keys for over 26 characters.

Key references

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience . New

York: Harper & Row.

Helander, M.G., Khalid, H.K., & Tham (Eds.) (2001). Proceedings of the

International Conference on Affective Human Factors Design . London: Asean

Academic Press.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of

intrinsic motivation for learning. In R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (Eds.). Aptitude,

learning and instruction. Volume 3: Conative and affective process analysis.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Norman, D.A. (2002). Emotion and design: attractive things work better.

Interactions, 9(4) , 36-42.

Rieber, L.P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational

Technology, 38(6) , 29-37.

PARTICIPANT SELECTION CRITERIA

In our opinion, this topic is preferably treated adopting a multi-disciplinary approach. Therefore, it would be ideal to have a group with mixed backgrounds in the workshop, ranging from a background in social sciences to a background as interaction designer. Also a mix of researchers and practitioners would be great. Preferably some participants should be working in the domain of consumer devices and/or services. Participants with experience in designing games are also welcome.

Based on the position papers submitted, those participants will be selected who have discussed the themes of this workshop in such a way that it will be likely that they will contribute to a lively, stimulating and fruitful discussion during the workshop, and are able to present new and lucid viewpoints.

Applying to Participate in This Workshop

A workshop is a closed session. Admission to a workshop requires an approved position paper from you addressing the issues suggested by the coordinator(s). Please send your position paper (which should be roughly 1 to 3 pages) to Jettie Hoonhout, jettie.hoonhout@philips.com and to Marcelle Stienstra, marcelle@mci.sdu.dk. Position papers received by March 24 will be accepted or rejected by March 31, in time for you to register before the early registration deadline on April 2. Position papers received by May 5 will be accepted or rejected by May 12, in time for the May 14 registration discount. Papers received after May 12 will be evaluated at the facilitator's discretion. If you want to register early for UPA and have not completed your position paper by these deadlines, you may register for the rest of the conference and add the workshop fee later.

PRE-WORKSHOP PARTICIPANT ACTIVITIES

As preparation for the workshop, participants are asked to:

• provide information on their professional background and work experience.

• describe what they expect to get out of this workshop.

• read the discussion statement, and the discussion topics.

• prepare 1-3 pages text describing their view on the theme, and commenting on the discussion topics; this text will also be used to select participants.

• select at least one example of a product or service they consider to be highly enjoyable ("a true experience"), and write out which product/service features they think contribute to this experience. Furthermore, they should indicate how these features could also be applied in the design of other products.

PRE-WORKSHOP FACILITATION ACTIVITIES

The position papers of the participants who are elected for participation will be distributed, along with some additional background material, to be compiled by the workshop facilitators, a couple of weeks prior to the conference. The workshop facilitators will prepare all materials necessary for the workshop session itself (introduction, support for the analysis of the product cases, material and tools for the design cases), and work out the organizational details.

POST-CONFERENCE DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS

We would like to publish the results of the workshop in any case as an article in User Experience. Depending on the outcome of the workshop, and the response of the participants, we are willing to consider other means as well (e.g. a book publication).

POST-CONFERENCE ACTIVITIES

Apart from what has been stated above, we have no detailed plans yet for other post-conference activities. This will also depend on the outcome of the workshop. If there is sufficient interest among the participants of the workshop, we like to consider starting a website with discussion facilities. During the workshop session, these possibilities will be discussed with the participants.

FACILITATORS

Jettie Hoonhout

Senior Scientist

Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands

Jettie Hoonhout works at Philips Research since 2000. Research focus is on new interaction technologies for leisure and entertainment devices, and on developing means to test these technologies from a user point of view.

She graduated in 1988 in cognitive psychology and human factors at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands. After graduation, she started working at the Psychonomics Department of the University of Utrecht, and worked in various contract research projects in the field of process control, HCI, and information design.

From 1997 until 2000 she worked at the Maastricht University, at the newly founded Psychology Department. Her work involved among other things developing parts of the psychology curriculum, in particular for the cognitive ergonomics program. Furthermore, she worked on developing interfaces for information retrieval systems, and ICT applications for high-schools.

She has published several papers, and (co-)edited two books, in the domain of cognitive ergonomics and information design.

Marcelle Stienstra

Researcher

Mads Clausen Institute for Product Innovation, University of Southern Denmark

Marcelle Stienstra, from the Mads Clausen Institute for Product Innovation, has gained experience in creating fun experiences through her Ph.D. project (carried out in cooperation with Philips Research, the University of Twente and the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven) on the design of interactive toys for children. In this research project she experimented with physically active interaction styles as ways to intrinsically motivate children into using technological artefacts.

Currently she is involved in a research project investigating how computing technology can be implemented into interactive playgrounds for children aged 3 to 12 years, in such a way that the interactive playground supports different types of play experiences. She is interested how technology can be designed in such a way that it invites people into using it, and how the experience provided during use can remain a fun and intrinsically motivating one.

Elmo Diederiks

Senior Scientist, Ir. mtd.

Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands

After a university degree and a post-graduate education in Industrial Design Engineering 5 years ago, Elmo Diederiks started working for Philips Research Laboratories. His work as Senior Scientist comprises the investigation, development and evaluation of innovative applications and interaction concepts for consumer electronics. He is strongly in favour of a user-centred research approach, since he is convinced that true understanding of users requires continuous input form a user perspective. His work has covered interaction concepts for video conferencing services, television program recommender systems, voice controlled televisions, home network systems, ambient intelligent systems and full-colour light systems. Furthermore, he has set up and directed a research programme on affective computing and is currently involved in research on enhancing user experiences.

He has been active in the HCI and CHI community since 1999, as reviewer for CHI and as author. He has published papers for INTERACT, AISB, UI4Al and IUI.