Andrés Lucero
Jussi Holopainen
Evangelos Karapanos
ABSTRACT
The Playful Experiences (PLEX) framework is a categorization of playful experiences based on previous theoretical work on pleasurable experiences, game experiences, emotions, elements of play, and reasons why people play. While the framework has been successfully employed in design-related activities, its potential as an evaluation tool has not yet been studied. In this paper, we apply the PLEX framework in the evaluation of two game prototypes that explored novel physical interactions between mobile devices using Near-Field Communication, by means of three separate studies. Our results suggest that the PLEX framework provides anchor points for evaluators to reflect during heuristic evaluations. More broadly, the framework categories can be used as a checklist to assess different attributes of playfulness of a product or service.
- Apter, M. A Structural-Phenomenology of Play. In Adult Play: A Reversal Theory Approach, Swets & Zeitlinger, 1991.Google Scholar
- Arrasvuori, J., Boberg, M. and Korhonen H. Understanding Playfulness - An Overview of the Revised Playful Experience (PLEX) Framework. Proc. Design & Emotion 2010, Design and Emotion Society.Google Scholar
- Arrasvuori, J., Boberg, M., Holopainen, J., Korhonen, H., Lucero, A. and Montola, M. Applying the PLEX framework in designing for playfulness. Proc. DPPI '11, ACM (2011), Article 24, 8 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bartle, R. Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Berman, B. How to delight your customers. California Management Review 48, 1 (1995), 129--151.Google Scholar
- Björk, S. and Holopainen, J. Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media, 2005.Google Scholar
- Blythe, M., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A. and Wright, P. Funology - From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Burghardt, G. The Genesis of Animal Play. MIT, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Buxton, W. Sketching User Experiences. Morgan Kaufmann, 2007.Google Scholar
- Carroll, J. and Thomas, J. FUN. SIGCHI Bull. 19, 3 (January 1988), 21--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clanton, C. Lessons from Game Design. In Information Appliances and Beyond: Interaction Design for Consumer Products. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google Scholar
- Costello, B. and Edmonds, E. A Study in Play, Pleasure and Experience Design. Proc. DPPI'07, ACM (2007), 76--91. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games. Jossey-Bass, 1975.Google Scholar
- Garneau, P. Fourteen Forms of Fun. Gamasutra, 2001.Google Scholar
- Hassenzahl, M. The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product. In Funology - From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer, 2003, 31--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Holopainen, J. Play, Games, and Fun. In Extending Experiences. University of Lapland Press, 2008.Google Scholar
- Holopainen, J. and Ollila, E. Collecting Faces - Augmented Reality Playful Application for Mobile Phones. Video Submission Presented at Pervasive 2010.Google Scholar
- Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. and Zubek, R. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Proc. AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 2004.Google Scholar
- Jordan, P. Designing Pleasurable Products. CRC, 2002.Google Scholar
- Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. and Martens, J. B. User experience over time: an initial framework. Proc. CHI'09, ACM (2009), 729--738. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kim, A. J. Putting the Fun in Functional. Google Tech Talk Video, 2009. http://youtu.be/ihUt-163gZIGoogle Scholar
- Korhonen H., Montola M. and Arrasvuori J. Understanding Playful Experiences Through Digital Games. Proc. DPPI '09, ACM (2009), 274--285.Google Scholar
- Koster, R. A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kubovy, M. On Pleasures of the Mind. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, 2003, 134--154.Google Scholar
- Lazzaro, N. Why We Play: Affect and the Fun of Games: Designing Emotions for Games, Entertainment Interfaces and Interactive Products. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, 2nd Edition, CRC, 2007.Google Scholar
- Lucero, A. and Arrasvuori, J. PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. Proc. Fun and Games 2010, ACM (2010), 28--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lucero, A. and Arrasvuori, J. The PLEX Cards and its techniques as sources of inspiration when designing for playfulness. IJART 6, 1 (2013), Inderscience, 22--43.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malone, T. What Makes Things Fun to Learn? Heuristics for Designing Instructional Computer Games. Proc. SIGSMALL '80, ACM (1980), 162--169. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. Technology as experience. interactions, 11, 5, 42--43. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proc. CHI '90, ACM (1990), 249--256. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. Iterative User-Interface Design. Computer 26, 11 (1993), 32--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norman, D. Emotional Design. Basic Books, 2004.Google Scholar
- Oliver, R., Rust, R. and Varki, S. Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial Insight. Journal of Retailing 73, 3 (1997), 311--336Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pellegrini, A. The Role of Play in Human Development. Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
- Shneiderman, B. Designing for Fun: How Can We Design User Interfaces to Be More Fun? interactions 11, 5 (2004), 48--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sutton-Smith, B. The Ambiguity of Play. Harvard University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
- Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games. Comput. Entertain. 3, 3 (2005), Article 3A. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tiger, L. The Pursuit of Pleasure. Transaction Pub, 2000.Google Scholar
- van Leeuwen, L. and Westwood, D. Adult play, Psychology and Design. Digital Creativity 19, 3 (2008), 153--161.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yee, N. Facets: 5 Motivation Factors for Why People Play MMORPG's. Terra Incognita 1, 2002.Google Scholar
- The playful experiences (PLEX) framework as a guide for expert evaluation
Recommendations
PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness
Fun and Games '10: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and GamesPlayfulness can be observed in all areas of human activity. It is an attitude of making activities more enjoyable. Designing for playfulness involves creating objects that elicit a playful approach and provide enjoyable experiences. In this paper we ...
Applying the PLEX framework in designing for playfulness
DPPI '11: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and InterfacesIn addition to functionality and usability, interactive products are increasingly expected to provide pleasurable experiences to their users. Playfulness is a part of these experiences. However, playfulness can manifest in many different ways as humans ...
How to evaluate emotional experiences in television drama series: Improving viewer evaluations by psychophysiological measurements and self-reports
ECCE '18: Proceedings of the 36th European Conference on Cognitive ErgonomicsThis paper describes experiences with new methodological approaches utilized in early viewer evaluations of a public service television drama series. We would like to challenge self-reports as the only source of data in viewer evaluations of television ...
Comments