Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

190 F. Mueller and N. Bianchi-Berthouze Table 11.1 Summary of case studies, outcomes and challenges in evaluating post-playing and in-place user experience Case studies Approaches Outcomes Challenges Table Tennis for Three: single condition Breakout for two: exertion vs. non-exertion condition Donkey Konga: exertion vs. non-exertion conditions Guitar Hero: exertion vs. non-exertion conditions Semi-structured interviews, observations and coding of video data Prisoner’s dilemma and questionnaires Quantitative comparison of verbal and non-verbal behaviours Quantitative analysis of movement by motion capture system Exertion facilitates social play in and outside game play, e.g. fosters the recollection of the experience through kinesthetic stimulation Exertion stimulates competition, connectedness Exertion facilitates empathic behaviour in cooperative games: increase social interaction and emotional experience Exertion facilitates emotional experience and role-taking experience. Amount of movement of the player correlates with engagement (a) How to define coding systems? (b) How to overcome the fact that re-enacting can bring players to reinterpret their experience? These measures overcome the limitations of self-reports but they are indirect How to define coding systems that produce high inter-rater reliability? The automatic analysis of complex movements (e.g., pointing, shrugging) is technically challenging We acknowledge that our approach cannot and is not intended to result in a comprehensive list of all available methods, nor describes every aspect of evaluation specific to exertion games. However, with our approach, we aim to focus on providing an experience-based account of what opportunities lie ahead in this exciting new field. We believe our experiences on this topic will give the reader an extensive, although not comprehensive, view from various perspectives, contributing to an understanding that can inspire and guide future investigations. 11.3 Evaluating User Experience Post-playing We begin by describing evaluation methods that are based on the belief that the game experience can be (self-)assessed after it has occurred, for example by interviewing the participants immediately after playing. Such approaches have the advantage that
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 191 they leave the experience unaltered, as they separate the experience from the evaluation process not only temporally, but also often physically. We start with interviews, as they are also often used in non-exertion games and are a familiar tool; however, we describe what purpose they serve in contributing to our understanding of exertion games. 11.3.1 Interviews For most of our experiments, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the participants after the gaming action. We have also videotaped these interviews, and we now describe our experiences with this method based on one particular case study. We selected this case study as it offered some unique insights into the social aspects of exertion games, as the players were geographically distant, connected only over a computer network. (We present a collocated exertion game study that also included interviews further below, but report on a different method there.) Case study: Table Tennis for Three. We have conducted semi-structured interviews in an attempt to qualitatively analyse the social play in Table Tennis for Three. Table Tennis for Three is an exertion game that was inspired by table tennis, but can be played by three geographically distant participants. It uses a real bat and ball on a modified table tennis table that detects the ball’s impact in order to modify virtual game content, projected onto the playing surface and augmented with a videoconferencing component to support a social aspect amongst the participants. A detailed description of the system can be read here (Mueller and Gibbs 2007a, Mueller and Gibbs 2007b), and the evaluation process is described here (Mueller and Gibbs 2007b). After having played the game, the participants were interviewed in one room together. The video recordings of the interviews were coded using qualitative analysis software. This approach revealed an interesting aspect specific to exertion games, which we aim to sensitise other researchers to, as it might affect the evaluation process. However, we begin by describing the study design. Experimental setup. Forty-two participants were recruited and asked in the advertising material to organise themselves preferably in teams of three. If they were unable to do so, we matched them up randomly with other participants in order to have always three people participating at the same time. We had one last minute cancellation; in this case, we replaced the third player with a participant who had played previously, hence we report on 41 distinct participants. The participants were between 21 and 55 years old (arithmetic mean 32 years), whereas 27 were male and 14 female. After each group of three participants played for at least 30 min, they were brought together into the same room after the game, where we conducted semi-structured interviews with all three of them together. The interviews lasted from 20 to 60 min and included open-ended questions about their experience and their interactions with the other players. We took notes during the interviews as well as videotaped each session. We analysed the video data using a coding process based on grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998), with the help of a database for all the video data. An iterative coding process was used to identify important themes
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 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170: 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: 11 Evaluating Exertion Games 189 pr
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 271 and 272:
13 Using Heuristics to Evaluate the
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?