Designing persuasive games through competition

This case study describes a game design competition that was influenced by participatory design. We consider how successful our approach was and discuss the tensions that arose during the design and evaluation process

Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups

With fast changing technologies and related human interaction issues, there is an increased need for timely evaluation of systems with distributed users in varying contexts (Pace, 2004). This has led to the increased use of questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups in commercial usability and academic research contexts. Questionnaires are usually paper based or delivered online and consist of a set of questions which all participants are asked to complete. Once the questionnaire has been created, it can be delivered to a large number of participants with little effort. However, a large number of participants also means a large amount of data needing to be coded and analysed. Interviews, on the other hand, are usually conducted on a one-to-one basis. They require a large amount of the investigator’s time during the interviews and also for transcribing and coding the data. Focus groups usually consist of one investigator and a number of participants in any one session. Although the views of any one participant cannot be probed to same degree as in an interview, the discussions that are facilitated within the groups often result in useful data in a shorter space of time than that required by one-to-one interviews. All too often, however, researchers eager to identify usability problems quickly throw together a questionnaire, interview or focus group that, when analysed, produces very little of interest. What is often lacking is an understanding of how the research method design fits with the research questions (Creswell, 2003) and how to appropriately utilise these different approaches for specific HCI needs. The methods described in this chapter can be useful when used alone but are most useful when used together with other methods. Creswell (2003) provides a comprehensive analysis of the different quantitative and qualitative methods and howthey can be mixed and matched for overall better quality research. Depending on what we are investigating, sometimes it is useful to start with a questionnaire and then, for example, follow up some specific points with an experiment, or a series of interviews, in order to fully explore some aspect of the phenomenon under study. This chapter describes how to choose between and design questionnaires, interviews and focus group studies and using two examples illustrates the advantages of combining a number of approaches when conducting HCI research

In the MOOD for Citizen Psych-Science

People make funny, frustrating and fatal errors on a daily basis. People can also create and apply strategies to avoid and mitigate error – this is called cognitive resilience. Researchers at UCLIC started the Errordiary project in 2009 as a way of raising awareness of human error research. Errordiary (www.errordiary.org) is an online public repository of the errors people make and the cognitive resilience strategies that they use. People contribute to it by using the #errordiary #rsdiary hashtags through Twitter. Over 130 people have contributed so far. The project has allowed researchers to gain a better insight into the resilience strategies that people use (Furniss et al., 2012). It has also been used as a real-life data set for teaching students about the psychology of human error (Wiseman, 2012). During August 2013 we interviewed 8 Errordiary contributors (5 female, 3 male) to find out more about their motivations for taking part. Most of our participants described their contributions as “occasional”, where Errordiary contributions varied from once a week, once a month, to once every 6 months. As one participant describes, “I go through a period of not contributing for weeks and then remembering it exists.” One reason for this is that contributions are event-driven. People cannot contribute whenever they wish - it has to be once they’ve committed an error or used a resilience strategy. Some participants described forgetting to contribute. Those that were regular twitter users were more likely to remember. As one participant describes, “I was already sharing errors on Twitter, now it’s just adding a hashtag.” The content of the error also had an impact on contributions. Sometimes participants did not tweet an error because they thought others might view their contribution as “mundane” or “not funny.” Contributions are visible to a person’s Twitter network, which means they are visible to a volunteer’s followers that may not know about the project. This makes contributing to Errordiary quite different to most other citizen science projects, where people contribute within the “safety” of being among like-minded others who share their interests. A couple of participants even described how they had set up a separate Twitter account just for the purpose of contributing to Errordiary. This highlights an important issue in using Twitter for data collection, as volunteers make a trade-off between convenience and protecting their privacy. These findings also highlight some of the ways in which a citizen psych-science project differs from a typical citizen science project. In citizen science usually volunteers collect or analyse data related to their environment (Haklay, 2013). However in Errordiary, researchers are asking volunteers to contribute their experiences of error. This means that volunteers are helping to collaborate in research, but at the same time they are the participants of the research. We suggest that this makes contributing to Errordiary more personal, and perhaps more sensitive, compared to other projects. The risks associated with sharing errors (e.g. negative perceptions from others, being viewed as incompetent) may counteract a person’s general good will to help researchers. Overall our study reveals several interesting insights concerning the spectrum of citizen science, and pros and cons in using Twitter for data collection. The Errordiary project is currently changing from being an online archive of error to a hub to engage and learn about error. This includes a ‘Discovery Zone’, allowing volunteers to explore research, media and games related to errors. It is now also possible for volunteers to login and contribute via the website – so the project is no longer restricted to Twitter users only. We plan to explore how these changes impact volunteers’ experiences in future research. References: Furniss, D., Back, J. and Blandford, A. (2012). Cognitive resilience: Can we use Twitter to make strategies more tangible? Proceedings of ECCE 2012, 96-99. Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In D. Sui et al. (Eds.) Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: VGI in Theory and Practice, pp.105-122. Springer Netherlands. Wiseman, S. (2012). Errordiary: Support for teaching human error. ‘A contextualized curriculum for HCI’ workshop at CHI 2012

Moving Beyond Fun : Evaluating Serious Experience in Digital Games

Games are normally considered to be 'fun', though recently there is growing interest in how gameplay can promote empathy and encourage reflection through 'serious experience'. However, when looking beyond enjoyment, it is not clear how to actually evaluate serious experience. We present an evaluation of four games that were submitted to a student game design competition; the competition challenged teams to design a game that inspired curiosity around human error and blame culture within the context of healthcare. The entries were judged by a panel of six experts and subjected to a round of play testing by twelve participants. Methods included gameplay observation, questionnaires, post-play interviews and follow-up email questions. We discuss the utility of these methods, with particular emphasis on how they enabled a consideration of the immediate and longer term impact of serious experience on players

Designing Better Prescription Charts: Why we can’t just ask the nurses

Prescription charts are not designed with the task of programing medical devices in mind. This is surprising because we know that charts need to be consulted for programing values. This paper summarizes what we know about chart design, and then reflects on what we do not know. In order to design charts that facilitate programing, we need a better understanding of how they are used in hospitals. We cannot only ask nurses about how they use them since they may omit information about context and clinical practice. We discuss approaches that we plan to use to obtain the required understanding

Gaming for Post-Work Recovery: The Role of Immersion

Playing digital games can be an effective means of recovering from daily work strain. However, limited research has examined which player experiences contribute to this process, limiting the ability of players to select games and play them in a manner which helps them recover effectively. Hence, this paper reports a mixed-methods survey study investigating how a recent post-work recovery episode was impacted by immersion: a player experience which has been implicated in theoretical accounts relating games and recovery. We found that particular dimensions of immersion, such as cognitive involvement, support specific post-work recovery needs. Moreover, participants report not only experiencing benefits in a passive manner, but actively optimising their levels of immersion to achieve recovery. This study extends previous research by improving our understanding of how digital games support post-work recovery and by demonstrating that immersion is key in determining the restorative potential of digital games

Supporting learning within the workplace: Device training in healthcare

The phrase “lifelong learning” places emphasis on the fact that learning continues beyond the classroom and formal educational environments, though it is often supported by training within the workplace. Continued professional development is all the more important within the context of healthcare, where technology is constantly evolving and errors run the risk of causing serious harm to patients. This paper considers the case of infusion device training within UK hospitals. Interviews were carried out with staff involved in medical device training and management across seven National Health Service trusts. The analysis indicates the range of training provided by different institutions and highlights important issues that influence how users develop their understanding of these devices. Further, the research indicates that while there is an increasing interest in e-learning as a way to overcome some of the tensions trainers face in relation to time and resources, there are also significant concerns which need to be addressed when considering this approach

Player strategies: achieving breakthroughs and progressing in single-player and cooperative games

Challenge is considered to be one of the key components of game-play, where game designers face the tricky task of getting the balance right so that game-play is neither too easy nor too difficult. Through attempting in-game challenges, players experience cycles of breakdown and breakthrough, where breakthroughs involve moments of insight in which learning occurs. However, little attention has been given to how players actually overcome challenges to progress during game-play. Across two studies, we explore the ways in which players attempt to achieve breakthroughs in relation to single-player and co-located multiplayer games. We identified a number of strategies that are used by players, which illustrate how learning occurs during play. For instance, while “Experiment” involves forming an informal hypothesis, “Trial & error” occurs when the player tries to find out what, if anything, will happen when they carry out an action. These strategies are considered in relation to supporting player progress and engaging game-play when designing commercial and educational games