Gamification
This week's content contained gamification, a subject that fascinates me almost as much as Augmented Reality. Video 4.1 discussed characteristics of gamification that could be employed. I found some were quite surprising when considered in the context of UX.
Obscured Heuristics
Skills checks
Unpredictable input/output
Unpredictable discoverability
Rewards
The unpredictability of discoverability was one that surprised me the most, where users are rewarded for taking risks in the discoverability of a system they are using and encouraged to use trial and error (Brown 2021a). I can see times when this would be totally inappropriate as a navigation element, and this reminded me of mystery meat navigation (Flanders and Willis, 1998:26), a term used by Vincent Flanders when referring to links whose purpose is a total mystery for first-time users and a cause of extreme frustration. However, I liked the concept of intentionally subverting the UX process where appropriate and in a way that’s not going to cause too much frustration. Friction, especially the concept of positive friction springs to mind here. I can see times when a challenging experience is a rewarding one if seen through to its conclusion, otherwise, you're susceptible to the Zeigarnik Effect, where people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed tasks (Laws of UX), but this can cause tension if unfulfilled:
“The Zeigarnik Effect is the tendency to experience intrusive thoughts about an objective that was once pursued and left incomplete.”
(Chakraborty 2017)
This was acutely felt by me when a favourite game of mine (Cuphead: the Delicious last course) was released during one of the modules last year. I found it increasingly difficult to concentrate on University content until I had completed the game, almost in a self-destructive way. The challenge needs to be appropriate for not only the task but the user's skill level and attention span as well.
Video 4.1 also asked me to consider times I had used Gamification before. In 2021, I used the apps Noom and Strava in combination to lose a total of 47 lbs in weight. Noom is a dietary app that purports to use psychology in its approach to weight loss. In actuality, it uses a combination of self-tracking and gamification techniques - likes streaks - to keep the user engaged, but isn’t social or competitive with other users. In contrast, Strava heavily uses badges, social endorsements, and challenges to keep users engaged. Strava is an exercise-tracking app that I used extensively during the process of weight loss. The key motivator to continuing with the exercise was visibility from others and the challenges you could participate in. Comparing the two apps with the goals of gamification is clear see they fulfilled all of them:
User Goals
You can map your process
It reinforces good behaviour
It provides a sense of achievement
Business Goals
Changes the user's habits
Drives interest
Motives regular interaction
However the motivators for Strava were slightly different as unlike Noom which leveraged Intrinsic rewards, there were additional extrinsic rewards of competition and badges. Looking a the SAPS model (figure 1) of Status, Access Power, and Stuff - Both apps appear to be closer to most desirable on the continuum between “most desirable” and “least desirable”.
The video made clear it’s important to pick the right elements to gamify, be that the onboarding process, rewarding certain behaviours, or purchases. Picking the right rewards is also important; are badges or points meaningful and redeemable or do they offer a boost in a user's status? Can intrinsic rewards be leveraged instead of extrinsic as these engender better engagement?
Supplementing the course content in a very big way this week was the book To Save Everything Click Here by Evgeny Morozov. I’ve read this book before, and it never ceases to amaze me how applicable the subjects discussed in its pages resonate with this course. Previously in GDO710, I had used it to critique my own experiences with Solutions, this time I turned to it for Gamification. This was prompted by this week's webinar, during which the conversation turned to gamification. I couldn’t help but share my experiences with it during the UXO740 module where I used it as a core mechanic for my artefact. Unknowingly I must have been waxing enthusiastically about the virtues of the technique - noting how this week's content would have been useful previously and how I found it fascinating. I was surprised the tone of the conversation changed to one of skepticism from both peers and tutors regarding gamification as an approach. I welcomed it for sure but felt like I had become a gamification apologist, which was not my intent. Carlos in particular made an excellent point:
“Who wants to get a badge from Deliveroo or your water company […], sometimes people think that gamification is the answer for the lack of engagement of people with digital experiences, but it’s not at all the case. If we thought more about motivation and more about the people we are designing for, these kinds of things [gamification] wouldn’t necessarily be thrown around as much as they are.”
(Santana 2023)
Gareth also mentioned the ethical implications of adding gamification to the mix:
“How do you make play an ethical activity for car insurance [for example]? You’re putting concepts together that don’t actually mean anything.”
(Lewis 2023)
This prompted me to reread Morozov, who is not shy to take evangelised tech concepts to task. Regarding Gamification, specifically those revolving around civic responsibility and duty (very appropriate in this instance) Morozov offers:
“…applied to civic duties, gaming incentives strip the idea of citizenship of much of its meaning. […] Encouraging citizenship is not just about getting people to do the right thing, it’s also about having them do it fo the right reasons.”
(Morozov 2013: 300)
Reading Morozov and participating in this week's webinar, I couldn’t help but reevaluate my position on gamification. I was very proud of the arefact I had produced in UXO740 regarding gamification and the use of augmented reality features. The concept used an extrinsic reward system to encourage users to post more authentic selfies on Instagram. This was based on primary and secondary research and attempted to combat an issue of mental health, self-esteem, and self-perception. Looking at this in a new light, was I approaching the issue in the wrong way? Does the end justify the means? A quote in Morozov's book I found particularly distasteful was a quote by venture capitalist Tim Chang who had invested in the early days of gamification:
“You almost have to ‘trick’ the masses into being healthy, and gamification is a great way to do this.”
(Chang, 2012, cited in Morozov, 2013: 300)
In this regard, gamification seems no different from deceptive design patterns. Does it incentives the wrong things for the right reasons, and in the case of civic involvement like volunteering, does it change the nature of that involvement irreparably? In this regard, another quote from Morozov's book struck me:
“…a project that enlists citizens into helping science by relying on game mechanics rather than by appealing to higher values will eventually come to transform how citizens relate to science. Thus game mechanics carry far more significant to normative implications than their proponents publicly acknowledge.”
(Morozov 2013: 311)
Replacing science in that quote with volunteering gave me real pause or thought. I had already recognised that one of my personas was reluctant to become involved with local charities and organisations, so the idea of up-skilling users in areas they were interested in - using volunteering as a vehicle - was a potential direction I could take. In this regard, the citizen (to use Morozov’s vernacular) was already disengaged with their civic “duty”. To play devil's advocate, would the use of gamification in this instance be such a poor ethical choice? Do the ends not justify the means in this respect? The local organisations would certainly be benefitting from volunteers where previously they wouldn’t have, but would the volunteer's engagement in the activity and their motivation to do so impact their interactions with the group? Should I be considering the impact of the artefact beyond the needs of the user themselves or am I overthinking all this?
All in all, gamification seems like a “clever” way to encourage engagement, particularly with things that potentially a user “ought” to do but are usually reluctant to do, but is it always the “wise” thing to do? Has my positive experience of using gamification in a project already coloured my approach to this current problem? Do I have the problem of “when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail”? In this analogy, I need to remember I have an entire tool kit, not just a hammer, not to say gamification might not have its case here, in one guise or another, but I should remember to use it appropriately and in a considered way along with other techniques.
Design Studio Method
The next topic was Design Studio Method. This one confused me somewhat as I initially thought of it as a literal design studio. Similar to Design Thinking, these terms seem intentionally opaque and nondescriptive to me so I have to try to divorce myself from the literal meaning.
“The Design Studio Method has become one of the most successful methods in Agile and Lean UX. This rapid iterative approach blends concept creation with critique. `Design Studio is a great way to jumpstart your design process, create 200-400 design concepts in just a couple of hours, or get team buy-in and ownership ”
Will Evans, NYU’s Design Thinker in Residence
Looking at this definition, The Design Studio Method appears to be a collaborative endeavour, one I see we’re asked to do in the challenge activity without referencing the group aspect. The process involves generating ideas in the form of sketches quickly, then iterating on these initial ideas. Stealing each other's ideas in the next round is encouraged and it looks like the idea is to push through awkward moments in the process and trust in it as even poor ideas can spark better ones. The process looks like a speed-up version of the design/delivery part of the double diamond approach. It also reminded me of the ideation processes in GDO710 where is put my whole trust in a process. In all honesty, this did yield results back then, but it made me feel uneasy and that I didn’t have full control of the process - just seeing where it went. I won’t deny, I would love to do a design studio collaboratively with colleagues or peers at some point as I love bouncing ideas off others to get to a better solution. At this point, however, it looks like I will be participating in a similar exercise as GDO710.
Sketches and Wireframes
Sketching is something that has been a part of my life for a while. As a student of Furniture and Product design 20 years ago, sketching was the primary artefact and method of communicating ideas, especially in the earlier stages of a design. These were the days before computer-aided design was mature. Sure there was software for design, but primarily sketching made up the bulk of the body of work assessed, so it was important they were clear and annotated well. However, I often fell victim to wanting them to look attractive and professional and would spend far too much time on them. As the video content this week states, the quality of the sketch should be measured by how effective it is at communicating rather than how pretty it is (Brown 2020b). As such, I’ve attempted to be a lot looser and quicker with my approach to this course to compensate for this, with mixed results (figure 2). I feel that I’m so keen to demonstrate brevity that sometimes it can get in the way of communicating the idea, especially if I rush the annotations as my handwriting isn’t very legible and my spelling is atrocious.
I feel I need to set a SMART goal here to practice my sketching to strike the right balance.
To practice sketching weekly until the end of the module, even when the weekly tasks do not require it, ensuring that the format adheres to the recommendations of video 4.2 and that all notes and annotations are legible.
I found the distinction this week between the reason we create sketches, wireframes, and mockups especially illuminating and it shocked me it's taken this amount of time to realise the importance and function of all three.
Sketching is a communication tool for yourself
Wireframes are a communication of the page structure
Mockups change this thinking and are used to communicate visual, design, and brand elements.
Although I may have had some subconscious understanding of this distinction, with an appreciation of where each sits in the design process, I think this black-and-white distinction will help me with my process moving forward and add clarity to it. Although even in wireframes there appears to be a difference between block-level, detailed and high-fidelity wireframes. I guess it depends on what you’re trying to communicate with them. Detailed wireframes look like a better fit when you start to converge on a more solid idea and allow for a more formal review with stakeholders and development to confirm functionality (Brown 2020b). High fidelity on the other hand looks like the stage just before mockups, where you have a single concept you need to refine.
Reflections
I seem to have mulled over gamification quite a bit this week, probably to the detriment of the other topics. I feel I am drawn to the more ethical and theoretical elements of the UX discipline as I move through this course, which is a surprising development as I felt I would gravitate to the practical side as a Kinesthetic learner. This might have something to do with me being particularly time-poor at the moment and feeling like I wouldn’t be able to do some of the challenges justice. I need to break this mindset as I know that once I get going that I will find them rewarding, as I did with GDO710. I think I put a lot of pressure on myself to get it right the first time, but that’s not the point of UX, I need to be comfortable with messing it up sometimes and learning from the takeaways. I’ve been saying this to myself on and off for a year now but now is the time to really make it count. I need to learn smarter, not work harder.
References
BROWN, Clementine. 2020. ‘Week 4: Gamification’ Canvas Falmouth University [online]. Available at:https://learn.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/283/pages/week-4-gamification?module_item_id=29892 [accessed 13/02/23].
BROWN, Clementine. 2020. ‘Week 4: Sketching Fundamentals’ Canvas Falmouth University [online]. Available at:https://learn.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/283/pages/week-4-sketching-fundamentals?module_item_id=29893 [accessed 13/02/23].
FLANDERS, Vincent. and WILLIS, Michael. (1998). Web Pages That Suck 2.0: Learn Good Design by Looking at Bad Design. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Laws of UX. 2021. The Zeigarnik Effect: Why People Remember Unfinished Tasks. [online] Available at: https://lawsofux.com/zeigarnik-effect/ [accessed 18/02/23].
LEWIS, Gareth. 2023. ‘UXO720 UX Design - Week 5 Webinar - Thursday 23rd February 2023 | 19:00 GMT’ [webinar]. UXO720 for MA User Experience Design. Falmouth: Falmouth University, 23 February 2023.
MOROZOV, Evgeny. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York: PublicAffairs.
SANTANA, Carlos. 2023. ‘UXO720 UX Design - Week 5 Webinar - Thursday 23rd February 2023 | 19:00 GMT’ [webinar]. UXO720 for MA User Experience Design. Falmouth: Falmouth University, 23 February 2023.
Figures
Figure 1: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. A representation of the SAPS model diagram
Figure 2: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. Initial Design studio sketched related to skill dashboard
Figure 3: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023.. Initial Design studio sketched related to volunteer location and a call to 'epic meaning'
Figure 4: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. Initial Design studio sketched related to searching a search results
Figure 5 : CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. Initial Design studio sketched related to gamification and onboarding
Comments