Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

178 M. Lankes et al. of three different scenarios, 192 constellations have to be multiplied by 3, resulting in 576 stimuli. Out of these 576, six scenarios are randomly chosen for each subject. Subjects have to indicate the perceived user experience via the AttrakDiff (Hassenzahl et al. 2003) questionnaire. In order to avoid material effects caused by repeated measurements, items of the AttrakDiff were randomized result in six different versions of the AttrakDiff questionnaire. Furthermore, each participant received the six generated Attrakdiff questionnaires in a randomized order when providing information on their impression concerning user experience factors. For the experiment, each participant was presented three scenarios (still/ animated/interactive) two times (one consonant/one discrepant). Each ECA appeared only one time for each participant. Repetition of consonant and dissonant emotion constellations was avoided and none of the emotion-eliciting situations was repeated for a participant. Concerning scenario 1 (still), a picture was shown containing a facial expression performed by a virtual actor (evaluated in prestudy 2), along with descriptions of the emotion-eliciting situations (evaluated in prestudy 1). An image of a virtual setting, referenced to the emotion-eliciting situation, is also displayed in the background. After subjects indicated that they were finished with their observations, the experimenter handed out the AttrakDiff questionnaires. Scenario 2 was structured similar to scenario 1, as facial expressions are presented along with emotion-eliciting situations. In contrast to scenario 1, the faces of virtual actors were animated by performing eye-blinking animations, slight head rotations, and minor changes of emotion intensity to grant a vivid impression. The emotion-eliciting situations were presented in three information chunks (see study 3) along with an animated background showing one of the eight virtual settings. The animation of background contained short clips with camera tilts. Each sequence played in looped cycles and lasted 20 seconds. The animation is stopped when participants finished their observation task during the experiment. Scenario 3 involved the assessment of user experience in an interactive setting. At the beginning of the experiment, subjects had the possibility to get used to the input controls (Wii-controller) by carrying out a tutorial. The tutorial contained an example scene made up of one ECA and three hotspots conveying dummy information. By performing the basic controls with the Wii-controller, the experimenter showed interaction possibilities. Afterward, participants were asked to maneuver within the scenery by themselves. They were told of the structure of interactive scenes and the purpose of information hotspots. Next, the stimulus was initialized by loading the required scenery. The scenery contained one ECA showing one out of four basic emotions, and three information hotspots incorporating descriptions of an emotion-eliciting situation divided into three information chunks (study 3). Participants observed the facial expressions and entered hotspot areas to read the situation-related information. As in scenarios 1 and 2, the experimenter handed out the AttrakDiff to subjects after the observation task.
10 Evaluating User Experience Factors Using Experiments 179 Twenty participants took part in the study, 9 female and 11 male aged between 21 and 54 years (M = 31.8). 10.4 Results We present the findings according to the three hypotheses: (H1) The overall user experience in the interactive situation is higher than the user experience in animation scenario and the still scenario. The evaluation of how users experience the various emotional stimuli in the varying conditions showed that the overall user experience in the interactive situation is rated at a higher level by users than in the animation scenario and still scenario (see Fig. 10.2). Comparing the overall judgment on the hedonic quality (HQ) of the users with a factor analysis shows that users rate the interactive scenarios presenting emotions as higher (M = 0.81, SD = 0.95) than for the still (M = 0.24, SD = 0.78) and the animated scenarios (M = 0.29, SD = 0.89). The post hoc analysis shows that the HQ is significantly different for the interactive scenario compared to the still scenario (LSD = 0.51, p = 0.01) and the animated scenario (LSD = 0.57, p = 0.04). We can conclude that emotions that are presented in an interactive setting lead to a higher user experience. (H2) The animation scenario in terms of user experience is rated higher than the still scenario. Fig. 10.2 Results of the AttrakDiff: overview of values concerning the hedonic and pragmatic quality of the three employed scenarios (consonant/dissonant)
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:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135:
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 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
120 G. McAllister and G.R. White 7.
Page 152 and 153:
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 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 207: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?