Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

136 H. Desurvire and C. Wiberg Evaluation, focusing on how each accessibility heuristic was supported or violated, and then defining the issue. Another usability/playability researcher performed Usability Testing in a one-on-one, think-aloud method, identifying any usability/ playability and approachability issues. The following is the list of GAP utilized in both methods of evaluation. 8.3.2.1 The GAP List 1. Amount and Type of Practice – Game allows opportunities for sufficient practice of new skills/tools 2. Amount and Type of Demonstration – Game play modeled in more than one way 3. Reinforcement – Game provides feedback of player’s actions 4. Self-Efficacy – Player competent with learned skills and tools after initial training 5. Scaffolding – Failure prevention where help is at first general then more specific as needed – Help provided as needed within the game 6. Gee: In control: co-identify, manipulation, perception, and Sandbox – Player identifies with game character – Player could affect the game world – Results of feedback appropriate 7. HEP- and PLAY-Based Guidelines (Desurvire et al. 2004, Desurvire and Chen 2006, Desurvire and Wiberg 2009) – Good game design guidelines in the categories of Game Usability, Game Mechanics, Game Story, and Game Play. This comprises areas such as players not being penalized repetitively for the same failure, defining the right challenge and balance, varying activities, and pacing during the game to minimize fatigue or boredom. – Player able to succeed at meeting goals 8. Goals of Game Clear – Player able to succeed at meeting goals – Coolness and entertainment – Game attracts player’s interest – Game retains player’s interest
8 User Experience Design for Inexperienced Gamers 137 9. Information On Demand and In Time, System Thinking – Actions and skills learned are useful throughout game 10. Self-Mastery – Player learned new skills and tools to play the game 8.3.3 Empirical Usability Evaluation After completion of Heuristic Evaluation and Empirical usability/playability laboratory testing with the four games, the results were compared. Heuristic Evaluation was analyzed first, followed by the empirical Usability Testing sessions. During the empirical usability evaluation of the four games, 32 players engaged in usability/playability sessions. For one game, eight players were observed, for another game 12 players were observed, and for two of the games, six players were observed. 3 The majority of the players were male, with only two players being female. All were between the ages of 8 and 35. Forty-nine percent of the players were considered casual players, 25% were considered moderate players, and the rest were considered hardcore players. Each session was organized as a oneon-one, think-aloud evaluation session, in an environment similar to the one where they would actually play the game. Participants were given instructions to begin the game and asked to think “out loud” during the session, except when it interrupted their game play. They were asked several probing questions while using the game prototype. The players were then thanked, debriefed, and asked to fill out a satisfaction questionnaire. The evaluator recorded a log of the players’ actions, comments, failures, and missteps and then coded each of these as a positive player experience or a negative player experience. A positive experience was defined as anything that increased their pleasure, immersion, and/or the challenge of the game. A negative experience was defined as any situation where the player was bored, frustrated, or wanted to quit the game. The probing questions and the players’ comments were used to verify any assumptions made by the evaluator. GAP was utilized during the sessions by the evaluator as a checklist to assist in identifying and categorizing accessibility issues observed. After the sessions were complete, any issues that were considered hindrances to learning how to play the game and having fun were identified, analyzed, and documented. 8.3.4 Comparison of Results After both the Heuristic Evaluation and the Usability Testing were completed, the results were compared to identify what types of issues each method found in the 3 An uneven sample size was necessary due to the needs of the game development and was accounted for in the analysis, since this is formative research a small sample size is typical.
Page 2 and 3:
Human-Computer Interaction Series E
Page 4 and 5:
Regina Bernhaupt Editor Evaluating
Page 6:
For Philippe
Page 9 and 10:
viii Foreword Chapter 3, Presence I
Page 11 and 12:
x Foreword personality which evolve
Page 14 and 15:
Contents Part I Introduction to Eva
Page 16 and 17:
Contributors Regina Bernhaupt IRIT,
Page 18:
Contributors xvii Manfred Tscheligi
Page 21 and 22:
xx About the Authors Emily Brown is
Page 23 and 24:
xxii About the Authors a post-docto
Page 25 and 26:
xxiv About the Authors Christina Ko
Page 27 and 28:
xxvi About the Authors MIT Media La
Page 29:
xxviii About the Authors Theft Auto
Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 1 User Experience Evaluatio
Page 35 and 36:
1 User Experience Evaluation in Ent
Page 37:
1 User Experience Evaluation in Ent
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 2 Enabling Social Play: A F
Page 43 and 44:
2 Enabling Social Play 13 It is als
Page 45 and 46:
2 Enabling Social Play 15 observati
Page 47 and 48:
2 Enabling Social Play 17 for playe
Page 49 and 50:
2 Enabling Social Play 19 to provid
Page 51 and 52:
2 Enabling Social Play 21 Colwell J
Page 53 and 54:
Chapter 3 Presence, Involvement, an
Page 55 and 56:
3 Presence, Involvement, and Flow i
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Chapter 4 Assessing the Core Elemen
Page 79 and 80:
4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101:
Page 104 and 105:
74 E. Brown (2005). Björk and Holo
Page 106 and 107:
76 E. Brown 5.2.3 How We Work Toget
Page 108 and 109:
78 E. Brown could be simulated on p
Page 110 and 111:
80 E. Brown 5.3.2 Pre-production At
Page 112 and 113:
82 E. Brown from the code. This is
Page 114 and 115:
84 E. Brown At this point, there is
Page 116 and 117: 86 E. Brown Game developers have be
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 6 Investigating Experiences
Page 121 and 122: 6 Investigating Experiences and Att
Page 135: 6 Investigating Experiences and Att
Page 138 and 139: 108 G. McAllister and G.R. White Th
Page 140 and 141: 110 G. McAllister and G.R. White su
Page 142 and 143: 112 G. McAllister and G.R. White of
Page 144 and 145: 114 G. McAllister and G.R. White te
Page 146 and 147: 116 G. McAllister and G.R. White qu
Page 150 and 151: 120 G. McAllister and G.R. White 7.
Page 154 and 155: 124 G. McAllister and G.R. White an
Page 156 and 157: 126 G. McAllister and G.R. White Al
Page 158 and 159: 128 G. McAllister and G.R. White Ne
Page 161 and 162: Chapter 8 User Experience Design fo
Page 163 and 164: 8 User Experience Design for Inexpe
Page 165: 8 User Experience Design for Inexpe
Page 177: 8 User Experience Design for Inexpe
Page 180 and 181: 150 K. Poels et al. in games. This
Page 182 and 183: 152 K. Poels et al. their game char
Page 184 and 185: 154 K. Poels et al. If we apply thi
Page 186 and 187: 156 K. Poels et al. Participants ge
Page 188 and 189: 158 K. Poels et al. 9.3.2 Exploring
Page 190 and 191: 160 K. Poels et al. If our train is
Page 192 and 193: 162 K. Poels et al. would be intere
Page 195 and 196: Chapter 10 Evaluating User Experien
Page 197 and 198: 10 Evaluating User Experience Facto
Page 213: 10 Evaluating User Experience Facto
Page 217 and 218:
Chapter 11 Evaluating Exertion Game
Page 219 and 220:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 189 pr
Page 221 and 222:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 191 th
Page 223 and 224:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 193 to
Page 225 and 226:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 195 co
Page 227 and 228:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 197 11
Page 229 and 230:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 199 an
Page 231 and 232:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 201 11
Page 233 and 234:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 203 to
Page 235 and 236:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 205 Ac
Page 237:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 207 Pa
Page 240 and 241:
210 M. Brown et al. challenges that
Page 242 and 243:
212 M. Brown et al. was also happen
Page 244 and 245:
214 M. Brown et al. Another importa
Page 246 and 247:
216 M. Brown et al. Albinsson and Z
Page 248 and 249:
218 M. Brown et al. asked to report
Page 250 and 251:
220 M. Brown et al. Table 12.2 Mean
Page 252 and 253:
222 M. Brown et al. Table 12.7 Cont
Page 254 and 255:
224 M. Brown et al. Table 12.9 Cont
Page 256 and 257:
226 M. Brown et al. Count 450 400 3
Page 258 and 259:
228 M. Brown et al. feedback. Thus,
Page 260 and 261:
230 M. Brown et al. Desurvivre H, C
Page 263 and 264:
Chapter 13 Using Heuristics to Eval
Page 265 and 266:
13 Using Heuristics to Evaluate the
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Index A Advanced interaction games,
show all

Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?