Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

144 H. Desurvire and C. Wiberg principle. The GAP offered a structure for the evaluators to categorize what was missing, which will lead to potential solutions. This explanation provides implications for both design and evaluation, since GAP can offer designers the conscious design principle that information ideally is taught on demand and in time for skills required to play the game (system thinking) and refined via Usability Testing. Heuristic Evaluation would identify this as a potential issue, but could only be validated with real representative players. 8.4.1.3 GAP Found in Both Usability Testing and Heuristic Evaluation From both the GAP Heuristic Evaluation and Usability Testing, the GAP – HEP and PLAY were both found. There were many issues found in both methods, (17 in Usability Testing and 12 in Heuristic Evaluation). This is not surprising, since HEP and PLAY issues are related to fun and playability. These do not directly have anything to do with learning and approachability, but learning must be fun and successful. These are issues that are the focus of game usability/playability, which both methods are focused upon. The difference is that Heuristic Evaluation can identify these issues, but Usability Testing validates these with real players. The violated issues that were identified under GAP – HEP and PLAY in both Usability Testing and Heuristic Evaluation in the games were the following: a. The first 10–20 minutes of play was fun and successful. b. Players should not be penalized repetitively or for the same failure. c. Varying activities and pacing during the game in order to minimize fatigue or boredom. d. The game provides clear goals; overriding goals are presented early, and shortterm goals throughout game play. e. The skills needed to attain goals were taught early enough to play or use later, or right before the new skill was needed. f. The game gave rewards that immersed the player more deeply in the game by increasing their capabilities or capacity to do things in the game. 8.4.2 Level of Detail In addition to differences in the number of accessibility/playability issues identified by each method, there was also a difference in the level of detail that each method provided concerning the identified issues. The Usability Testing referred more to specific areas of the games where problems occurred, providing a count of the number of players that had difficulty at certain areas of the game, as well as quotations from players that indicated frustration. Conversely, the Heuristic Evaluation identified areas where a player was not given the means to master a skill set, whether by motivation to follow through, or by the actual teaching given and practicing allowed. This evaluation then indicated other areas in the game that might give players trouble since they had not learned the needed skill. This is most likely a result of Usability
8 User Experience Design for Inexperienced Gamers 145 Testing describing problems as they are seen while Heuristic Evaluations are predicting problems players are likely to have. The high number of HEP and PLAY issues identified by Usability Testing may also be a result of this difference (see Table 8.1). For Usability Testing, each area that a player had difficulty in was identified as an issue, such as unclear goals, and thus each separate area would be counted as an issue. For the Heuristic Evaluation, the problem was counted once but then noted that players would continue to have problems with a certain skill set because it had not been learned at the time the designers intended. 8.5 Conclusion Our results indicated that the usability one-on-one testing and the GAP Heuristic Evaluation of the games provided information that supplemented each other. The GAP principles were useful in evaluating the game design and offering suggestions to the designers based on the principles and the associated issues found. GAP provides a structure for organizing approachability issues, so that designers can have an understanding of what is lacking, and thus what is necessary to create an optimal learning level that is also fun. The GAP Heuristic Evaluation alone provided more information about Game Approachability while the Usability Testing provided more information about playability/usability of the games. GAP with Usability Testing can be perhaps best thought of a way to validate and refine assumptions made in the initial GAP Heuristic Evaluation, with real players. This was evident especially with the GAP Scaffolding and Information on demand and in time. GAP used for Heuristic Evaluation is likely to identify more approachability issues, since that is the focus of the evaluation, whereas the Usability Testing focuses on not just approachability, but usability/playability issues that may supersede the approachability focus. Alternatively, the Usability Testing is able to provide a level of detail that is not possible in the Heuristic Evaluation, such as specific quotations from the players that validate real experience, rather than predicted experience. It is important to note that the evaluation is performed with live players and, as we know, human behavior can never be accurately predicted. More important for approachability, GAP offers the promise and ability to be proactive when used by the developers in creating a design that includes these principles prior to the design being finalized. This in fact may be one of the most valuable uses of GAP, since the conceptual design sets the foundation. If a design is used based on GAP, then it provides a built-in structure for learning while having fun. Heuristic Evaluation using the same language and structure in GAP allows a refinement, and Usability Testing with GAP uses a finer level of evaluation since real users are involved. Further, since GAP is a novel approach to Usability Testing, evaluators may be more likely to focus on more traditional usability issues, as opposed to approachability ones. With more practice and experience with GAP, evaluators are likely to uncover more issues upon further use when testing real players. Still, Heuristic Evaluation, used as an adjunct and alternative inspection method, allows a way to uncover some issues that may be similar to evaluating real users, and some that
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 123 and 124: 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 173: 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?