FUN

Abstract

We are in many ways just getting started on the problem of developing a set of concepts and a vocabulary for describing the quality of software and in particular its usability. Consider: easy to use, easy to learn, user friendly, productive, fun. How do these, and other terms used to describe software differ; how do they overlap? In this paper, we examine the confusion between being fun and being easy, as these terms are applied to end-user software and systems. This confusion is interesting in that we can ask how such a circumstance might have ever occurred. It is challenging in that we need to separately clarify the concepts of ease and fun, if they are to provide us any analytical leverage in understanding software quality.

References

1. Carroll, J. M. 1982. The adventure of getting to know a computer. IEEE Computer, 15/11, 49-58.
2. Carroll, J. M. and Mazur, S. A. 1986. LisaLearning. IEEE Computer, 19/11, 35--49.
3. Carroll, J. M. and Thomas, J. C. 1982. Metaphor and the cognitive representation of computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 12, 107--116.
4. Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
5. Lepper, M. R., Green, D., and Nisbett, R. E. 1973. Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
6. Malone, T. W. 1981. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333--368.
7. Malone, T. W. 1984. Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from computer games. In J. Thomas and M. Schneider, Human Factors in Computer Systems, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.