Linköpings universitet SE–581 83 Linköping
Linköping University | Department of Computer science
Master thesis, 30 ECTS | Datateknik
2016 | LIU-IDA/LITH-EX-A--16/001--SE
Designing for engagement
using gamification in mobile
applications
Design av engagemang genom gamification i
mobilapplikationer
Henrik Foo and Oskar Mårtensson
Supervisor : Magnus Bång Examiner : Mattias Arvola
Upphovsrätt
Detta dokument hålls tillgängligt på Internet – eller dess framtida ersättare – under 25 år från publiceringsdatum under förutsättning att inga extraordinära omständigheter uppstår. Tillgång till dokumentet innebär tillstånd för var och en att läsa, ladda ner, skriva ut enstaka kopior för enskilt bruk och att använda det oförändrat för ickekommersiell forskning och för undervisning. Överföring av upphovsrätten vid en senare tidpunkt kan inte upphäva detta tillstånd. All annan användning av dokumentet kräver upphovsmannens medgivande. För att garantera äktheten, säkerheten och tillgängligheten finns lösningar av teknisk och admin-istrativ art. Upphovsmannens ideella rätt innefattar rätt att bli nämnd som upphovsman i den omfattning som god sed kräver vid användning av dokumentet på ovan beskrivna sätt samt skydd mot att dokumentet ändras eller presenteras i sådan form eller i sådant sam-manhang som är kränkande för upphovsmannenslitterära eller konstnärliga anseende eller egenart. För ytterligare information om Linköping University Electronic Press se förlagets hemsida http://www.ep.liu.se/.
Copyright
The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible replacement – for a period of 25 years starting from the date of publication barring exceptional circum-stances. The online availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, to download, or to print out single copies for his/hers own use and to use it unchanged for non-commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional upon the con-sent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility. According to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement. For additional information about the Linköping Uni-versity Electronic Press and its procedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/.
c
Abstract
Creating engaging applications can be difficult and challenging. In a constantly evolv-ing world of technology, more and more daily activities provides us with reward. More and more people play games, at home, on the buss, on the train. More and more peo-ple experience the spark of joy as they are rewarded and motivated to perform better, to progress.
This thesis presents the design and development of an application prototype used in a wildlife park to enhance and promote engagement using elements of gamification. Gam-ification is a term that has risen in popularity the last couple of years. With the use of simple game elements one can transform otherwise mundane applications into something engaging.
Here we discuss and present the different aspects of designing an application using gamification, as well as an evaluation of engagement and usability following conventional and established means of user testing and engagement measuring.
It is concluded that gamification elements can indeed be used to achieve high engage-ment.
Acknowledgments
We, Oskar and Henrik, would like to thank our examiner and supervisor Mattias Arvola. We would also like to thank our mentor Magnus Bång for the help he has provided throughout this process.
In addition, we want to thank Tina Jansson, Mats Amundin and Mattias Zingmark for working so closely with us and giving us the opportunity to perform this thesis work with and at Kolmården Wildlife Park. Another thanks goes to Fredrik Gustavsson and Gustav Hendeby for providing us an office space and helping us with communications and logistics. In addition we would like to thank Annemiek Haandrikman for taking part in our work-shops, and all those who participated in our user testing session and engagement evaluation. A big thanks also goes out to all our friends and classmates who have helped and moti-vated us throughout this process.
Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgments iv
Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation . . . 1 1.2 Aim . . . 2 1.3 Research questions . . . 2 1.4 Delimitations . . . 2 2 Theory 3 2.1 Engagement . . . 3 2.2 Gamification . . . 4 2.3 User experience . . . 6 2.4 Evaluation methods . . . 7 2.5 Digital Tourism . . . 9 2.6 Design process . . . 9 3 Method 13 3.1 Prestudy . . . 13 3.2 Iteration 1 . . . 16 3.3 Iteration 2 . . . 18 4 Results 19 4.1 Method Results . . . 19 4.2 Prototype . . . 23 4.3 User testing . . . 31 5 Discussion 34 5.1 Results . . . 34 5.2 Method . . . 37
5.3 The work in a wider context . . . 40
6 Conclusion 42 6.1 Future work . . . 42
6.2 Parting words . . . 43
A.1 Storyboards and persona . . . 46
A Appendix B 50
A.1 Wireframes . . . 50
A Appendix C 56
A.1 User testing questionnaire . . . 56
A Appendix D 58
A.1 Iteration 1 Test Results . . . 58 A.2 User answers . . . 58
A Appendix E 61
A.1 Iteration 2 Test Results . . . 61 A.2 User answers . . . 61
List of Figures
2.1 Interest of "gamification" over time. Data Source: Google Trends
(www.google.com/trends). . . 4
3.1 Overview of iterations and their activities. . . 13
3.2 Photograph of the result of the brainstorming session . . . 15
4.1 Start screen . . . 23
4.2 The achievements screen. . . 24
4.3 The friend tracker. . . 24
4.4 The animal collection screen. . . 25
4.5 The collected animal screen. . . 25
4.6 The information screen of a collected animal’s life. . . 26
4.7 The timeline of a collected animal’s life. . . 26
4.8 The map of the park. . . 27
4.9 The enclosure screen. . . 27
4.10 The enclosure food information. . . 28
4.11 The enclosure status information. . . 28
4.12 The enclosure map information. . . 29
4.13 The quest screen. . . 29
4.14 The highscore screen. . . 30
4.15 The help text pop ups. . . 30
List of Tables
2.1 Elements of engagement . . . 8
4.1 Result from the engagement survey, first iteration . . . 31
4.2 Result from the engagement survey, second iteration . . . 32
A.1 Question used in a 5-point Likert scale . . . 56
A.1 Result from the engagement survey, first iteration . . . 58
1
Introduction
Many businesses and operations have created mobile applications as a complement to their service or website in an attempt to modernize, but these applications rarely engage the user and they do not take advantage of some of the opportunities that the medium presents. Often these applications are simply created as a way to present information in a compact fashion that allows the user to look things up.
Instead of forcing the application to replace the already existing websites and brochures, it can become something more. By using the concept of gamification as a catalyst for engage-ment, an application can become a viable tool that stays relevant throughout its lifespan. This thesis describes the creation of a mobile application prototype for a wildlife park, developed in a way that promotes engagement through gamification and thereby interests the user to actively interact with the it.
This is a thesis written as part of the Master’s program in Computer Science at the Depart-ment of Science and Technology, Linköping University, spring 2016. This introductory chap-ter introduces the motivation, aim and research question for this report, as well as certain delimitations regarding the work.
1.1
Motivation
Designing applications can be deemed an easy or intermediate activity, but creating engage-ment is hard. Thus, there is great difficulty in developing and designing engaging appli-cations. The use of specific techniques and elements can be helpful in these situations, but choosing what elements, aspects and approaches to use when designing for engagement is not intuitive.
Gamification is a relatively new phenomena, which have risen in popularity throughout the last couple of years. The expression gamification relates to an informal umbrella term, meaning the implementation of video game elements in a non-video game environment in order to improve the user experience, and increase the user’s motivation and engagement. [6]
Thus, this thesis was written in hopes of unearthing new and valuable insight into the pro et contra regarding the use of gamification in applications used for wildlife parks, and shedding light upon a relatively new and unexplored area of how to achieve high level of engagement in an application promoted to be used in such environments.
1.2. Aim
1.2
Aim
The aim of this thesis project is to determine a way to develop engaging mobile applications for visitors of wildlife parks. In order to do so, the thesis describes choosing a design process that is deemed appropriate for a project of this type. The process is then used for the devel-opment of a mobile application for a wildlife park, focusing on effect goals, which provides basis for evaluation and conclusions regarding the development of engaging wildlife parks. Furthermore, it explores the use of gamification elements as an approach for achieving high user engagement.
1.3
Research questions
This thesis will try to answer the following question:
• What design process is appropriate in the design of a mobile application for a wildlife park?
• How can one design for engagement in such applications with the use of gamification? In a more general sense, the purpose of this thesis is to determine a design process that possesses characteristics suitable for development that focuses on the customer’s needs. The process needs to support creation of products that encourages engagement in the wildlife park’s visitors. The thesis also determines a method of user testing the application prototype. This is used as a basis for evaluating whether process does indeed produce a product that has the attributes that raises the engagement in the park’s visitors.
1.4
Delimitations
This thesis project will not consider whether the mobile application is focused on learning or not, and will not evaluate how to make such applications more motivating and engaging. Subsequently, the project will not evaluate how the learning process affects motivation and engagement either. While the result of the thesis might be extrapolated onto mobile appli-cations in other genres, the project itself will only be evaluated in regard to wildlife parks. The project will only focus on one mobile application and will not extend to other mobile applications or other types of applications.
2
Theory
This chapter aims to give the reader knowledge of the different theoretical areas that will be relevant to the method, result and discussion. First and foremost engagement and gam-ification will be explained, as this thesis aims to answer a question closely related to such. Furthermore it will give insight in different design approaches, their pros and cons, as they are the foundation on which the method chapter will be laid upon.
Gamification, being a recent field of study, will also be explained in this chapter. Digital tourism will overview modern tourism and its connection to technology. Last, evaluation methods for user interfaces pertaining to engagement will be provided.
2.1
Engagement
Engagement is the act of engaging or the state of being engaged according to the dictionary. Furthermore, to engage is to occupy the attention or efforts of a person or persons. In psy-chology we find three definition for attention:
• A concentration of the mind on a single object or thought, especially one preferentially selected from a complex, with a view to limiting or clarifying receptivity by narrowing the range of stimuli.
• A state of consciousness characterized by such concentration. • A capacity to maintain selective or sustained concentration.
The word engagement and research pertaining to engagement is today associated with ei-ther work or education. It is also closely connected to motivation as both it and engagement play a big role when it comes to desired outcomes. In workplace environment, or hobby-related subjects such as sports, music, and writing, engagement and motivation are associ-ated with effort and time in order to increase performance, skill and understanding. [14]
More specifically sports and music are categorised into two sets of engagement, mastery-oriented and goal-mastery-oriented. In music the first is strongly favoured, meaning that the engage-ment and motivation when playing music comes from becoming better, more prominent in the field, rather than achieving a specific, concrete goal. In sports mastery still plays a major role when impacting motivation and engagement, but actual goals are more common and
2.2. Gamification
plays a larger role. Often one practises a sport in order to compete, meaning becoming better and more prominent are a tool for a successful achievement. [16]
In educational purposes, engagement is defined as the time and effort a student puts into educational activities. Various factors are taken into consideration in this statement. Educa-tional activities include everything linked to the educaEduca-tional outcome, meaning that faculty interaction, co-curricular involvement and peer communication are also part of the engage-ment. It can be divided into two parts, in-class engagement and out-of-class engagement, both equally important for academical success. [12]
Furthermore, when it comes to students, a number of specific psychological factors impact engagement. It is stated that psychological and physical energy investment can define en-gagement. Upon this, it is clarified that engagement is not binary in its existence. One is not simply engaged or not engaged, but rather engaged on some abstract, arbitrary scale. [12]
In relation to engagement, research performed in the 80’s and 90’s defined some key as-pects of design connected to motivation. It was found three main themes directly affected motivation, namely presence of a clear task or goal, hierarchy of challenge and skill or pro-gressive balance, and immediate feedback, something often seen centred in computer and video games, as clarified in the next section. [7]
2.2
Gamification
As seen in figure 2.1 the concept of gamification has surfaced in recent years as a way to use game elements outside of game contexts.[2] [6] Depending on the context, gamification can be used to obtain positive effects by engaging users and motivating them to, for example, use a certain software or perform a specific task.[11] Organisations can use simple game ele-ments, such as achievements and badges, to reward their users and create interest as well as satisfaction when the user is on the right track. In other words, games and engagement are closely related.
Figure 2.1: Interest of "gamification" over time. Data Source: Google Trends (www.google.com/trends).
In a recent study from 2015 Negru¸sa et al. did a broad analysis of use of gamification for sustainability in tourism.[18] In their study they analyse a large number of hotels, resorts, and other companies who see a lot of different customers, and their use of different elements of gamification directed towards these. Their main focus lies on social, economical and envi-ronmental effects.
In the study they find a certain pattern of different uses of gamification. Three main groups surfaces, namely loyalty programmes, advertising/promotions and developing or creating new ser-vices.
2.2. Gamification
Loyalty Programmes are most commonly used by in restaurants, hotels and resorts. It fo-cuses heavily on customers earning points, credits or other achievable currency, in one way or another, which at a later stage can be used to gain certain "levels" or promotions. For ex-ample, a hotel company gave points each time a customer checked in at one of their hotels. With higher points the customer achieved certain bonuses, such as discounts in the future, or special access to high-end suites.
Another hotel that was studied also made use of a point system, but instead had a lottery each month where everyone with a certain amount of points could compete for free weekends and discounts.
Similar use of loyalty programmes can be seen in more than just tourism as well. Hair dressers, bookstores, fast-food chains, gas stations and many more, make use of loyalty pro-grammes where one can collect badges at each purchase, which at a certain point leads to a large discount or a free purchase.
In the study it was found that the loyalty programmes led to increased loyalty (especially from younger customers) and improved knowledge of customer behaviour. In a social as-pect it was also discovered that the social media visibility for the company increased. Such loyalty programmes also increased the interaction between the customer and the supporting systems.
Advertising/Promotions were discovered through the Gift Card App, an application where customers can send, receive and exchange gift cards with one another via sharing on social media channels. Other such elements can be found in McDonald’s application where cus-tomers can redeem discounts.
It was found that the use of advertising/promotion through an application increased aware-ness of the brand, gave alternative sales channels as well as new promotion strategies. As with the previous group, it also increased social media visibility. In an environmental aspect it also helps reduce resource consumption, as there were no need for physical print-outs.
The last group, developing or creating new services, were found mostly in restaurant chains. One restaurant, 4food, used an application to let their customers create their own burgers and name them through a profile. All customers with a profile could then share such creation with each other. Another one such restaurant was Pizza Hut, who made use of large touch screens in order to let their customers design their own pizzas.
This group increased product diversity and product flow for the companies. It also pro-moted healthier food choices, as the use of applications easily could display nutrition facts to the customers, creating awareness. It also led to decreased resource consumption, since there were no longer a need for physical menus.
All these gamification elements were looked at through a company-customer aspect. How-ever, gamification can also be benefited from in a company-employee aspect. Three main groups of company-employee gamification elements were found, namely training, recruit-ing and stimulation/Productivity monitorrecruit-ing. Lastly, gamification in a societal aspect regardrecruit-ing community was found. It was not directed towards specific groups of customers, but rather to promote sustainability as a whole. [18]
2.2.1
Location-based and location-aware applications
The concept of games or applications that are based upon a location is a way to connect the digital world with the real one in a physical sense. Applications that are location-based are connected to a real place, while location-aware applications knows where the user is, and can adapt its content and behaviour accordingly. While location-based and location-aware applications are similar, location-aware applications make for greater possibilities in terms of reality augmentation since the user can affect the application by moving around in the real world.
2.3. User experience
2.2.2
Engagement and gamification
Today’s computer and video games are widely popular due to their design of engaging play-ers. Everything from specific gameplay elements, narrative arcs and player point of view are used to immerse, motivate, and engage the player. [7] In contrast, everyday life and activi-ties often lack these factors, and as a result may come off as dreary and bleak in comparison to the virtual realities provided by games. [17] McGonical described this phenomenon and suggested that games and gaming concepts should be used outside of their original purpose, and instead considered as a useful tool create engaging activities in real life. In her book she provides examples of successful implementations of such games where the activities are conventionally boring but are made fun by the use of games that encourage participation.
McGonigal tells the creation and effects of three separate games meant to enhance real life activities and situations. Chore Wars, a game where the player creates a character and then gathers points by performing household chores, aims to liven up and encourage participation of all members of the household. Fashioning the chores as quests, which award points and achievements upon completion, is a way to let the activities be more than "chores". The people in the household can also agree upon rewards that they can exchange for the points they’ve earned from the game. Chore Wars sets out to entice the participants to perform activities in a way that promotes fun, engagement and active participation, and the testimonials on website of the game bears witness to it’s success. [5]
McGonigals second example, Quest to Learn, is a game focused on education and learn-ing that is an attempt to gamification in school. The students are given the opportunity to solve quests instead of tasks and homework, and are given gamelike encounters instead of conventional teaching. The school boasts 54% proficient students on the ELA exam 2015, in comparison to the citywide 30.4%. [13]
Lastly, McGonigal describes a game concept called SuperBetter that she herself created when trying to cope with postconcussion syndrome. She used the game to set up activities for herself and her friends in way that helped her in recovering from her injury. In SuperBet-ter the player can assign themselves a superhero persona, friends and family as side-kicks, symptoms as "bad guys", and feel-good activities as power-ups. The game made her feel better and she was fully recovered a month later. [17]
2.3
User experience
The ISO 9241-210 standard was introduced in 2008 and defined user experience (UX) as "per-son’s perceptions and responses resulting from the use and/or anticipated use of a product, system or service", and the quality of the user experience is determined by how efficiently a user can complete their task as well as the satisfaction they achieved by doing so[8]. The ISO standard describes several principles that are suitable when designing with user experience in mind. An important aspect to keep in mind when designing for engagement is that gam-ification alone cannot carry the engagement on its own. Other aspects can easily bottleneck the entity of the experience.
2.3.1
User experience design principles
Designing user experiences requires an understanding of the user that is meant to use the software. This involves discerning what the user expects from the software as well as under-standing the environment that it will be used in. This is to ensure that the software is really designed with the actual user in mind in contrast to preconceived notions and creating an inexact idea of who the user is.[8][15]
The user should also be involved in the design process. This means obtaining feedback and working actively with the user to ensure the design is heading in the right direction. In order
2.4. Evaluation methods
to not lose track of the objective, it is important that this is an activity that is maintained throughout the project and not limited to the beginning and the end.[8][15]
Involving the user allows the development to be driven by user evaluation. By perform-ing user tests and workperform-ing with feedback from the users, the software can be incrementally improved upon and means that the improvements tend to key issues.[8][15]
Designing in an iterative fashion ties in with the continuous feedback from users and incre-mental improvements. Instead of trying to establish an exact idea of the user’s needs from the get-go, the idea can be updated as the project proceeds and the user tests prototypes and concepts.[8][15]
Rather than focusing too much on details that may improve the design experience, the de-sign should address the user experience as a whole. It is worthwhile to take issues raised by designers and users into consideration, as long as the perspective does not narrow down and the issues eclipse the user experience in its entirety.[8]
The team members that will work with the design should preferably come from different backgrounds rather than members that compose a homogeneous group. The benefit is a team with a multifaceted perspective which is able to discern a multitude of issues and possibilities that could otherwise be neglected.[8]
These principles presented in the ISO standard is a common baseline for projects in user experience design and ought to be individually considered to some degree.
2.4
Evaluation methods
Even though one can follow proven design methods and implement engaging elements ac-cording to previous works, it is of little consequence to establish the results of such without testing it. There are four ways to test user interfaces: automatically, empirically, formally and lastly informally, often called heuristically. While empirical methods are commonly used when evaluation user interfaces, it can be difficult and/or expensive to recruit a sufficient amount of test subjects. There are a number of different approaches to inspection meth-ods, and heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthroughs and standard inspections are used in smaller groups, where not a lot of personnel is required. [20][19]
Cognitive walkthroughs uses detailed procedures in order to determine the course of action, a dialogue with the user while it solves the problems.
Standard inspections simply uses an expert to evaluate the interface, implying that the project is in need of someone with expertise knowledge of the area of testing.
2.4.1
Heuristic evaluation
Heuristic evaluation is the most informal method and is based on a small team determining the usability depending on a set of predetermined principles, or heuristics. Such principles can be gathered from common guideline documents.
Though being an informal method of evaluation, it comes with some difficulties. In the four experiments conducted by Nielsen and Molich , it was found that even in the best case scenario some 50% of the usability problems were not discovered using heuristics. Even so, it is argued that finding some problems are better than finding no problems. That said, one should if possible combine heuristic evaluation with some other usability evaluation.
Heuristic evaluation should not be done on more than ten individuals, as such are bound to yield diminishing returns and only consume time. The easiness of the approach, as well as the fact that it is cheap, makes it an easy to use method available to all, thus being a well received approach. [19]
2.4. Evaluation methods
2.4.2
User engagement evaluation
There are many ways to test a user interface. Mainly such tests reveals flaws in the design, finds unintuitive elements and non-user-friendly interactions. Engagement on the other hand is harder to measure because of its abstract nature.
Trying to evaluate engagement in an interactive system is a interdisciplinary problem, as it involves both the sciences of computers and psychology. O’Brien and Toms [24] developed a survey for measuring user engagement, testing it on an online shopping service. It was tested exclusively on individuals using interactive services falling under one of the following categories: Web searching, shopping, video games, and online learning.
Another study performed by Wiebe, Lamb, Hardy and Sharek used a small game called Block World in order to test user engagement. The participants were asked to play the game for a short while, before answering a survey containing questions pertaining to a number of elements regarding user engagement.[33]
The elements were relevant in both of the studies, and although somewhat different from each other, a clear red thread can be found and the summary of these elements can be found in table 2.1.[23] [33]
# Element Description
1 Aesthetics The visual appeal of the system.
2 Endurability The users emotional response to the system, and if the user would use the system in the future or recommend it. 3 Felt Involvement The user interest and enjoyment while using the system 4 Focused Attention The concentration and involvement level of the user. 5 Novelty The variety of sudden or unexpected emotional changes,
such as alarm, joy, unfamiliarity or curiosity.
6 Perceived Usability The affective and cognitive aspects of the system (Frustra-tion and effort).
Table 2.1: Elements of engagement
In the evaluation of the game Block World, the survey contained 31 questions pertaining to the 6 elements of engagement. Each question was based on a 5-point Likert scale. It was de-termined that the reliability of this survey was acceptable with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92.[33] On another note, when O’Brien and Toms discusses the results of their generalisation of the engagement scale. They obtain similar results, deeming them very good and excellent.[23]
In order to create such an evaluation, 28 questions divided into the above categories were needed. It was found that the Cronbach’s alpha for each category was between 0.67 and 0.88, focused attention and aesthetics being the most important factors while endurability was least important.
O’Brien and Toms also discovered how the different categories pertain and relate to each other. At the core aesthetics and novelty create a base for how other categories will perform. They claim that visual appeal in union with curiosity and a will for exploration is key to create flow within an application, in this case focused attention and felt involvement. Felt involvement increases perceived usability, which in turn produce a high level of endurability. It was also discovered that aesthetics to a small degree effects the perceived usability, and that focused attention to a rather high degree can affect felt involvement, but not the other way around. [24]
Large scale biometrics is another alternative to the engagement user testing scale. It is a method that requires a lot of equipment and can be troublesome, costly and time consum-ing to use and set up. When such is used, one will observe galvanic skin response, heart rate, electromyography of the jaw, respiration rate, and respiration amplitude. [24]
2.5. Digital Tourism
2.5
Digital Tourism
With such a globalised world tourism all over increases. Nowadays more and more tourists seek new and different experience when traveling.[29] Today alternative experiences can be offered through the use of tablets, smart-phones and other interactive devices containing guides, maps, notifications, augmented reality and more.
The whole process of tourism can be relevant to increased use in technology: the planning stage, while traveling, at the tour site. Mostly such applications are a helping hand, but do not enhance the experience itself. In a study by Park, Shi and Nam [28] it was discovered that a satisfying solution to increased tourism needs was the use of augmented reality, mentioning that use of increased interactivity would further improve the experience.
2.5.1
Integrity and preservation of values
Designing applications, or other products intended to enhance the visit of tourism locations, is a process that needs to respect the integrity of the location in question. In his book, "Things that make us smarter", Norman tells of an exhibition in a science museum which included a large screen displaying a scientist that entertained the viewer. [22] Norman argues that the exhibition, along with similar exhibitions, aim to cater to experiential cognition as opposed to reflective cognition.
Experiential cognition is an effortless process where a person reacts automatically. In this mode, the person performs an action by instinct, which may be acquired naturally or through training, without thought. The opposing side are actions ruled by reflective cognition. These are actions that require some level of premeditation before coming to a decision. Neither mode of cognition is unnecessary, but while catering to experiential cognition might garner more easy attention and quick feedback, reflective cognition is required to pass on valuable information.
Using experiential cognition in the purpose of creating an product or service for tourism locations can lead to engagement, but lead to detachment from the locations original purpose. In Norman’s example, the exhibition focused on capturing attention instead of passing on the information and essence of science. It is therefore important to take into consideration the intent of the tourism location, and to not neglect reflective cognition if that is what is required to create actual and relevant value.
2.6
Design process
There are several methods for accomplishing goals within design projects. Depending on a series of factors, such as goals, end user, deadlines etc. different approaches meets different needs, each with different pros and cons. In the end, whatever choice one might make, all have in common that they try to include the end user in the process.
2.6.1
Process approach
Design process tendencies can be found in many places and tasks, from the daily work of a craftsman to that of a white-collar worker, and there are many ways to approach such processes. Although the common denominators of design methods are analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, the execution differs widely. [10]
In order for a design process to make room for creativity and innovation so that wild ideas, that may or may not work, can be put forth, many processes incorporates some level of di-vergence and condi-vergence in their design step. Didi-vergence is a time for minds to run free and dream, while the convergence phase narrows down on the best (feasible) solution. This suits projects where one has a need to explore the possibilities in the scenario given, as opposed to settling with the conventional implementations. [10]
2.6. Design process
The classic process for engineers and programmers was to simply develop a product and then deliver it. This straight forward method, however, was often a hit-and-miss. Later, this method evolved to include an initiation phase, proper testing phases, and, as Alan Cooper formulated in 2001, a design phase. Cooper was a strong supporter for a goal-oriented design process, where the goals in question were the user goals. This method of design ensures to a much larger degree that the product or service is actually the one that is wanted, and it puts emphasis on communication with the stakeholders to minimize risks. [10]
The cycle of these three steps; define, prototype, and evaluate, was adapted by Alice Agogino who proposed a design-build-test. Design lead to build, build lead test, and test lead either back to design or build, depending on the faults that were discovered. Although Agogino further expanded this loop to fit into a larger perspective, the smaller loop remain powerful for smaller projects where other parts, such as marketing, might not be as prevalent. [10]
2.6.2
Agile Design
As recent years have seen agile project methods prevail over the traditional waterfall method, the design methods need to adapt accordingly. One such method is agile experience design, which aims to mesh with the agile development method.[30] Using this design method, the designers are meant to work more closely with the developers and synchronize with their iterations.
Agile design uses collaboration to achieve a shared understanding and effective working relationship. This means that the designers, developers, and stakeholders are closely con-nected preferably physically as well as mentally. Activities in the early stages of the project should therefore include a collaborative exercise where such a meshing of understanding can take place.[30]
The agile design promotes sacrificing a big up-front design and instead focusing on smaller increments as the development progresses. This is meant to combat the problems that arises when the designers create the full design and then dumps it in the laps of the developers, asserting their work as "finished". By using the agile experience design, the designers can be a part of the development and design continuously which allows adaption to technical diffi-culties and user needs that may be discovered as the project goes along. Rapid improvements of the prototypes can be done by reacting on consistent feedback from stakeholders.[30]
2.6.3
Conceptual Design
The first step in any process should be determining what and why a product or service is being developed. It is important in order to create goals and create a vision of what the process will lead towards. The conceptual process can be divided into five steps: [3]
1. Planning the conceptual phase, focusing on the human.
2. Create insight into the concept with the use of interviews and studies revolving around the end users. Use this to create personas, storyboards, scenarios, etc.
3. Specify the effects and goals.
4. Use design tools in order to create concept designs.
5. Evaluate the concepts in order to determine their value towards the specified goals and effects.
One of the most important aspects of conceptual design is determining the demography towards which the end product or service is directed. In order to gather data one can observe,
2.6. Design process
do interviews and perform contextual studies. They complement each other in order to get the most out of the conceptual phase.
Interviews should be conducted in an open way, in order to let the interviewee tell and explain as much as possible. Figuring out why the interviewee provides the answer they do is key. One should avoid getting the interviewee’s input on the future. If anything, one should at most ask what could have been done better.
Observations are done in order to gain non-verbal input from a subject. This way, one may see much that can be left out from an interview. Most people are not always aware of everything they do, thus cannot reflect the whole truth.
Contextual studies are a combination of the previously mentioned techniques, and includes a more active interview, done in the environment subjected to the design.
When analysing the data collection, one can take many different approaches. Affinity di-agrams can be used to group data and find patterns as described by Raven and Flanders. While doing such a pattern grouping one may discover themes and categories. Questions that can be used to discover different patterns.[3]:
• What surprises were found?
• What did we expect to find, but didn’t? • What have we learned?
• What have been put into a new light? • Why is this pattern or anomaly here?
With the use of this data one can continue with the creation of storyboards, personas, sce-narios to further provide underlying structure to future work. Personas act as a focus for the design.
2.6.3.1 Bodystorming
An alternative to brainstorming is bodystorming which was created in the 1950s.[26] Like brainstorming, bodystorming is a way to generate ideas, but the difference is that bodys-torming promotes a role-playing approach to designing solutions.[27] [32] Brainsbodys-torming is a common technique used to produce ideas, but it often takes place on a location and in a set-ting that bears no connection to the subject being brainstormed. This disconnection between designers and the user environment is a cause for misinterpretation of the actual needs of the user, and the direction of the idea aggregation can be skewed.
Bodystorming means taking this process to the relevant environment, or as close as pos-sible, in order to carry out the concept innovation and design discussion on-site. This way the designers can get a better grasp of the context and empathize with the intended user. In addition to sparking new ideas, the designers become more attached to their concepts and to the project. In the case that the actual environment is inaccessible to the designers, the role-playing component of bodystorming can be expanded, although finding an accurate en-vironment is recommended.
A bodystorming session is performed by a session leader giving design questions to the participants. These questions encapsulate a problem in the environment that the participants can solve by forming ideas. The design questions might pertain to what the users encounter, people they might meet, or what experiences they might have.
This technique can be used throughout a project and one could even perform the entire design and coding process on-site.[31] Using bodystorming when designing for common places, such as stores and cafés, helps in creating a further understanding of the business and the people there. This fulfills several purposes as the site might have been unfamiliar
2.6. Design process
to the designers and developers, or they lack a deeper understanding of the customers and workers.[27]
One study of the bodystorming technique suggested using a simple prop to help prompt the design questions of the bodystorming session.[26] By using a simple wooden block to simulate the device, called Hawkins’s block, the participants were provided with a tangible experience that still left much to their imagination. While the study was considered a success, it is unclear whether credit should be given to bodystorming or the combination with the wooden block. [4]
2.6.4
Assumption Testing
This is a method of testing assumptions that have surfaced during the process. Assumptions that have risen in the process are guesses, well informed more than not, about what the end user desires and needs. Many such assumptions may seem obvious, yet it is important to test their truth.
Identifying truth and false in assumptions is key to make one a better observer. It makes sure that the design is on the right track and that the needs for the product are really there, what makes or break the project. It helps in weeding out irrelevant, potentially dangerous, decisions and ideas from the concepts produced. [25]
2.6.5
Effect Goals
No matter what the design itself may pertain to, there is importance in discovering what the design is trying to achieve, what effects the end-product is trying to achieve. The easiest way to figure out what effects are truly desired, is to ask the question way, iterating over the initial goals. For example, a small mobile game company may wish to add new functionality in their game. Asking why may reveal that they wish to do so because they want their players to have more fun, so that they are more keen to invite their friends to play, which in the end will lead to more players.[3]
It is easy to forget what lies behind visions and features. Impact mapping is a combination of ideas and methods based on InUse effect mapping. It aims to establish clear impact goals and forces one to discover why certain goals or features are important, what lies behind them and what impact they will have.[1]
Impact mapping vouches for so called SMART goals, an abbreviation for: • Specific, meaning that goals should not be broad.
• Measurable, meaning that all goals should be measurable using some heuristic. • Action-oriented, meaning that goals should be attainable.
• Realistic, meaning that goals should be possible to achieve.
• Timely, meaning that goals should be done within a time boundary.
Using the method as described in Impact Mapping requires some identification. One should identify the goals, the actors, the impacts and the deliverables.
3
Method
This chapter describes the method used to carry out the project. The method and its activities is divided into sections by iteration, as seen in figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Overview of iterations and their activities.
In the sections below each step of the iterations are explained, as well as their preliminary results, according to the agile design process as described in the theory chapter.
3.1
Prestudy
The prestudy consisted of establishing a rapport with the stakeholders as well as discussing the purpose and direction of the project. The iteration put emphasis on creating a shared
3.1. Prestudy
vision of the project in order to minimize the risk of wasting work effort in creating concepts and prototypes that would not achieve the desired effects.
The purpose of the prestudy was to build rapport with the client and to kick-start the con-ceptual design phase with a well informed background and with the right mindset for cre-ativity. It also aimed to make use of a workshop together with the client in order to make them involved in the design process, as well as gathering their thoughts and ideas to create a common ground for the project.
3.1.1
Workshop
The first meeting with the client took place at their place of work. Brief introductions were made, and pleasantries exchanged, over a cup of coffee. Then followed a workshop where a client representative showed the designers around on a couple of sites where user interac-tion normally takes place. Discussions emerged naturally at each locainterac-tion, pertaining to the specific site, the user interaction at the site, and how the client would like the application to enhance the user’s experience. The client representative was encouraged to express their views on the business and the users, and what they perceived as features of interest.
3.1.2
Bodystorming
The first design workshop was finished with a bodystorming session outside the Savannah enclosure. There were three participants and two trigger questions or scenarios. After each scenario had been presented, each participant sketched and wrote down possible solutions to the scenario. The scenario solutions were then presented by their author. No criticism was allowed, as not to inhibit further ideas and creativity. The ideas conjured by this workshop was saved for later use in the coming brainstorming session.
3.1.3
Brainstorming
The main method used for diverging on the results of the workshop and the bodystorming was brainstorming. Such methods are usually recommended for larger groups of people, but still yielded good results using two persons. [25] Seventy different ideas were created and explored through the use of trigger questions. The ideas were represented as text on post-it notes. These notes were then sorted into different categories, and some were discarded due to irrelevance or simply being too unrealistic.
3.1. Prestudy
Figure 3.2: Photograph of the result of the brainstorming session
Main categories that formed was a typical game, a navigation helper, a close social media connection, companion application, station-based exploration and animal interaction.
3.1.4
Conceptual design and mock-up
Based on the ideas generated in the brainstorming session, three different concepts were cre-ated. They each pertained to a main idea. Mock-up prototypes were created in the form paper wireframes in order to visualise the ideas and how they would be interacted with. Napkin pitches were created in accordance with the methods constructed by Ogilvie and Liedtka [25]. The napkin pitches attempted to clarify the need for the solution that particular concept was trying to solve, how the concept approached the need, what benefits it could possibly bring, and finally what other providers of the service already existed.
3.1.5
Conceptual design and engagement
As the main aim of this thesis is to answer the question on how to design for engagement, a large part of the conceptual design focused on creating engaging elements. Based on the theory chapters on gamification and engagement a number of factors can be found.
One of the most prominent design choices that can be seen throughout the conceptual de-sign is the use of achievements, as seen in many modern games. Achievements pertain to the goal-orientation in engagement and motivation. It gives the user a clear, or somewhat clear if one wishes, goal.
Another feature in the same genre as achievements was collection, in this case a collection of animals the user has visited. The main assumption here is that there would be a relevant ref-erence between user and iconic, or even nostalgic, games like Pokémon1. This also promoted
1Pokémon is a game for handheld consoles in which the player takes the roll of a trainer of pocket monsters. His
or her mission is to collect, train and battle different types of monsters of different rarity. The game focuses heavily on the collection aspect.
3.2. Iteration 1
a goal-oriented approach to reach an engaging motivation factor, encouraging the user to find all of a certain number of animals.
Another prominent design choice is the use of a map graphically expressing something more playful rather than informative. A mini-map, as it is called in games, is widely used to both help the player navigate the environment, but also promote exploration by either showing icons that symbolise an unexplored event/landmark (E.g Far Cry, Assassins Creed, Tomb Raider). It can also be used to show the player unexplored territory, promoting them to go out and explore without specific landmarks or pointers on where to go (E.g Morrowind, Don’t Starve, Dragon Age Inquisition).
The use of a more colourful map reminding of a mini-map would increase imagination of another reality, and by doing so, decrease associations with the real world, creating a form of immersion.
3.1.6
Co-creation
In order to test the different assumptions that had surfaced during the iteration it was deemed important to have a co-creation session with the customer. This also proved to be an oppor-tunity to review the effect goals.
A meeting with a co-creation session were held after the mock-up and conceptual designs were finished. The three ideas were presented to the representatives in order to extract their thoughts and input on the concepts, how they might see them work in different contexts, what changes they would make, or where they would shift focus towards. This shed light on some particular instances as they figured that the concepts would be more suited in their recent start-up project with Norrköping’s municipality and elementary school classes. The only shift here in the concept was the assumed age of the user, which turned out to be lower in the case of using the final product within the project.
The representatives stated that the project carried out aimed to teach the students visiting the park, yet have a non-linear way to do this. They would much rather see the use of a gamification application in this context, where it, as in the first cases of the concepts, engage the user and enhance the overall experience.
The client also expressed an interest in a competitional element in the application. The idea was that visitors could compete against each other in gathering points, and in the case of the collaboration with Norrköping’s municipality, the elementary school classes could compete against each other.
3.2
Iteration 1
The first iteration started with prototyping, as described in following chapters. The aim was to create a prototype which would later be used in an evaluation pertaining to engagement. Each iteration was planned to end with such an evaluation, and the following iteration would begin with suggestions for improvement as received from the evaluation.
The first iteration begins with prototyping according to the conceptual design decided in the final stage of the previous iteration, the co-creation. It aims to create a foundation for user testing and engagement testing to be used in iteration two in order to make improvements based on the feedback.
3.2.1
Prototyping
It was decided that two different tools for prototyping should be used, as a divergent ap-proach. One of the prototypes were done entirely in a prototype program for interactive wireframes, Just In Mind. The other one was done using HTML, CSS and Javascript. There were pros and cons concerning both these methods. As prototyping progressed, both
proto-3.2. Iteration 1
types were merged into one using the HTML-prototype as a base. Further implementation was done in the HTML-version.
It was decided to make use of a web based application, as it would be accessible to a much larger degree than an application that would have to be downloaded by the user.
The guidelines used in designing the prototype was based of the merge and co-creation session of the first concepts. First of all, the design needed to promote engagement. It needed to contain elements such as stations, as the main focus of the intended use was to motivate the users to travel through the park and visit specific locations.
In line with gamification, it was suiting to examine gaming elements that would be suitable for promoting exploration. Key elements discovered and implemented were:
• A colourful map using fog of war2and icons for so called PoI, point of interests. • Achievements, unlockable by completing specific tasks around the park.
• An animal collection in order to further promote awards for progress, as well as cater to the expressed desire of information about specific animals (as opposed to information about their species as a whole).
• A high score list, to show who have completed the most quests in the application.
3.2.2
User Testing
In order to test the prototype a two-part survey was conducted after the user testing session. The questions was based on the engagement scale by O’Brien and Tom and the implementa-tion for its testing in games, created by Wiebe, Lamb, Hardy and Sharek. [23] [33]
The first part consisted of 28 questions and the second part included five open answer ques-tions.
Since the user testing sessions would be held in Swedish, the questions from the User En-gagement Scale was translated. To some degree there may occur translation errors due to different subtleties and/or sense and signification in between the two languages. Overall it was determined that there would be no language barriers that potentially hurt the results of the testing.
The form itself was made available on the Internet. The participants of the user study was provided with a laptop in order to fill out their answers. This way it was easier to collect the data and do analysis.
The user testing was divided into two parts. First pilot tests were performed on a group consisting of fewer people in order to check the test itself. It is possible to look at it as a risk mitigation process, so that it is guaranteed that the test itself is not faulty. In such cases it might be discovered that some questions were unclear or that an unsuspected event halts the test process.
All users test were done on one and the same device, a mobile phone of make and model LG G2. It has a 5.2" screen.
The bulk of the user participant demographic was university students. A perquisite for attending the user testing was having visited a zoo or wildlife park.
In the open ended part of the survey a number of issues and other user input were captured. These were mainly used in order to capture strengths and weaknesses of the design that the user experienced, but may not have been apparent while observing the user testing session. These were necessary in order to further improve the prototype.
2Fog of war is an element often found in strategy games. It is an element of obscuration, a thick often dark fog
3.3. Iteration 2
3.2.3
Client feedback
At the end of the first iteration a meeting was arranged with the client. Kolmården’s represen-tatives were given an explanation of what ideas were kept from the concept design followed by a demonstration of the prototype. The overall client impressions were positive and the prototype was considered fitting the park and the need for engagement.
3.3
Iteration 2
The second iteration aimed to improve upon the previous prototype using the data gathered from user testing and client feedback.
Some of the development in the second iteration focused on the issues that cropped up during the user tests in the first iteration. These were a set of minor issues that together constituted a detriment to the user experience as a whole. The user tests had produced mainly three types of feedback, namely the numbers from the form that was filled out, the open questions in the form, and lastly the vocal feedback when the testers used the prototype. While the numbers were primarily used to make sure that no overall aspect of the prototype fell behind, the other feedback could be directly used to make improvements. The most frequent issues, and those that were perceived as critical, were picked to be improved upon.
The client feedback from the first iteration was mainly not in regard to specifics in the proto-type, but the general direction in which to take the project. Hence, the rest of the development cycle focused on this overall approach. The client was satisfied with how the prototype func-tioned and how gamification encouraged users to be engaged. The main concern was instead in regard to how their regular informational media could be adapted to fit in with the ap-plication, and they wanted to see how the information should be designed as to not hinder engagement.
3.3.1
User testing
The second iteration of user testing was done the same way as in the first iteration, but with a slightly smaller user base than the previous session. These users were not the same as before as to continue testing the first impression. The impact of this will be discussed further in later chapters. The new users were of the same demographic as previously and the test itself was still not performed at the wildlife park itself.
As before, the users were students who had previously visited a zoo or wildlife park. Many of the users had visited Kolmården previously.
The second user testing session were done on the same device as before, with the same core test instructions. A couple of minor inputs were added in order to test the newly imple-mented functions.
The engagement test was also the same, without any modifications.
3.3.2
Client feedback
As the project drew to a close, one last meeting was held with the client to present the final prototype and the changes that had been made since the last meeting. The meeting was informal and consisted both of presenting the prototype as well as some open discussion. The final version was discussed, as well as the role of the application in relation to the park’s current application, and what direction the development should take in the future.
4
Results
This chapter presents the prototype, the overall idea behind its functionality, layout and aes-thetics. It will explain the more important design choices made for the application, and how those pertain to gamification and engagement. It will also present a more detailed explana-tion of the results of the user testing and engagement testing sessions.
4.1
Method Results
This part of the chapter describes the different results, feedback and changes that were dis-covered and executed during the design process. It aims to give valuable information on how the end prototype were designed based on the process.
4.1.1
Concepts
Here follows the three concepts that were procured. The storyboards and persona that pref-aced the brainstorming and concept design can be found in appendix A, and the wireframes for the concepts can be found in appendix B.
Concept 1was named "Kingdom of Kolmården". It was based on the navigation and ex-ploration aspects derived from the brainstorming session. Its main feature was a map that focused on being playful and visually appealing as seen in many video games, rather than an informational map. It featured symbols representing enclosures where the user could acti-vate special features relevant to that location. Such features would be quests and information about the enclosures and the animals within. The motivation behind visiting these enclosures would be achievements in the form of badges and points in the application.
It became clear from the napkin pitch that this approach would cater towards children, teens and young adults, because of their familiarity with the idea of achievements and game like navigation. The concept would fulfil the need of a better map, or rather a more appealing overview of the park area. It would attempt to stir curiosity in the user in order to promote exploration, giving them incitement to visit enclosures.
It was led to believe that providing an interactive more appealing map would help visitors navigate the park more easily as it would provide a goal-oriented approach to guiding the
4.1. Method Results
user. It could possibly help visitor feel more emerged in their experience in the park and make them feel more adventurous.
The benefits this concept would bring would be more customer satisfaction, as their overall experience would be more enjoyable. This would then lead to those users recommending the experience to others, giving more publicity.
Concept 2was named "Radio Rhino". It catered first and foremost to families. It was based on the idea of a companion app, created in the brainstorming session. The main idea behind the concept was a guide in the form of a rhino. It would describe where the user was located, what that location contained, and give the user objectives to solve. This concept was also intended to provide the user with information such as nearby restrooms and food stands, but only when deemed contextually relevant based on location, time of day, etc. Similar to the previous concept it also contained achievements and points in order to fulfil the gamification aspects of this work.
The concept was to fulfil the need of information gain, help the user and answer questions. This of course surmised that the user was in need of information, rather than other aspects of their visit. The information would however be presented in a more fun way as compared to text. It would also reduce unnecessary information seeking by immediately pinpointing what the user might be interested in.
As before, this concept would provide local goals for the user, quests which they could fulfill, but the focus would be on the guiding aspect of the application.
Concept 3was named "Ranger Road". It was catered towards children and young adults, mostly the latter. The basic idea behind this concept was a map, much like concept 1. How-ever, the purpose of this concept was to mimic the work of real rangers and ranger stations, instead of the free and playful intention in concept 1. It focused more on how certain quests or activities at a station could be handled, rather than how the navigation aspect worked. As with concept 1, it was assumed that this would battle the feeling that visiting the park was not engaging, and battle the lack of motivation to visit the whole park.
By the use of a map pinpointing points of interest (stations) and make sure that the user followed a specific route, akin to the actual work of wildlife park rangers, this concept aimed to give a realistic feel of being a ranger. The stations were also made to simulate such work. The idea behind this was to increase knowledge and understanding about the rangers’ work, but also provide a more motivating experience.
The benefits of this concept was like the other concepts, to engage the user, leading to in-creased enjoyment in their experience and provide a goal/guide during their visit.
4.1.1.1 Concept synthesis
The final result from the pre-study was a synthesis of concept 1 and 2. These concepts were similar, although their focus was on one hand playful fun, and on the other hand ranger-like work. It was concluded that these two would mesh well after compromising between their two purposes, picking the more playful approach but keeping the the more meaningful purpose of ranger-like quests. The feedback from Kolmården’s representatives also pointed to these two concepts, and they were excited by what the quests could contribute to the park’s purpose by giving them a useful meaning, similar to the ranger’s work in Africa. While the content of the quest design would be left up to Kolmården, the work proceeded by developing the navigation, exploration, achievement and quest elements from these two concepts.
4.1. Method Results
4.1.2
Client feedback in iteration 1
The client was interested in the way that a user can visit an enclosure in the application while they are there physically. While the application in itself made the visit of enclosures more engaging, the text used was the same as could already be found at the enclosures in the form of simple signs. The text on the signs and in the application was simply a description of the species and some relevant facts. The client requested further development of the applications virtual enclosures and the information within. They were interested in how the information about a species could be made even more engaging in the application, since they had already realized that the parks’ signs were not engaging and as such were rarely read.
The current prototype had no competitional component and the idea was brought up again by the client. This time some discussion took place regarding whether it was appropriate. The purpose of the original idea of competition was that in the case of school classes visiting Kolmården, the classes could compete against each other and perhaps win some sort of price. The issue was that this might make some students feel uncomfortable and exposed since their performance would directly influence the score of the whole class.
4.1.3
Changes based on client feedback
The client asked for a more engaging way to present information about species and animals. A solution to this was to select the most valuable information and split them into sections, instead of presenting them all at once to the user. Within these sections of information, as much text as possible was replaced with icons or symbols, making is easier to ascertain with a glance. Highlights within the text was also discovered and used as a possible solution to this.
In regards to presenting information about individual animals, the client was not sure about what kind of information would engage the users, and they requested suggestions for such information. As with the information about enclosures and species, it needed to be relatively clear and easy to ascertain. The information was subsequently split into sections as the en-closure information was, and each section was represented by a symbol.
The client had expressed a desire for a competitive element in the application, however, this was not fully considered in this iteration since the client themselves were unsure whether it would fit the applications purpose or not. However, a simple high score list was imple-mented. The purpose of this list was to only show the top score among the user’s friends, and only the friends with the highest score. This was intended to show how a competitional element can be implement.
Some of the discussions with the client revolved around the fact that the application is first and foremost not meant to be used by someone who visits the park alone without any relation to other current or previous visitors. This was interpreted as a need of a social components in the application. This was somewhat achieved by the high score list which only displayed the progress of one’s friends as opposed to strangers. To further promote the social aspect, the achievements in the application were further extended to also display a truncated list of friends who had completed each specific achievement.
4.1.4
Changes based on user feedback
One of the most important aspects that needed to be addressed was the design of the button for the quest missions. Leading to one of the most significant functions of the gamification aspect of the application, it was important to show that it was tapable and to create a desire to tap it.
Many users perceived the earlier version as a banner or a flashy header. The new button was centered and given a prominent placing on the screen. An animation, much like the animations for the location buttons on the map, was added to further bring attention to the button, although the animation was later removed since it did not seem to help in this case.
4.1. Method Results
A common criticism from the user testers was that they could not zoom the map in the application by the conventional method in mobile phones, i.e. the pinch and zoom motions. This feature had been left out due to some technical difficulties in its implementation, but it was implemented in the second iteration since many testers perceived this feature’s absence as an obstacle.
In order to reduce confusion, or rather to increase understandability, tooltips were imple-mented for important features of the application. The first time one used the application, these tooltips were displayed. After that, the user was able to open the tooltips again by tapping the question mark added in the menu. When showing the tooltips, the rest of the content was dimmed slightly as to bring attention to the tooltips. Removing the tooltips was done simply by tapping anywhere on the screen.
4.2. Prototype
4.2
Prototype
This section aims to describe the prototype and its layout, functionality and purpose. It will give an explanation to each and every screen in the application and explain they layout and functionality, and how these pertain to elements of gamification and engagement. All screens are captured from the last version of the prototype based on the user and customer input from the end of iteration one.
Figure 4.1: Start screen
The prototype featured a starting page, as shown in figure 4.1. The top bar fea-tured a menu containing buttons leading to high score, achievements, animal col-lection, map, and help text pop-ups. The menu is always visible on all screens, as well as this one. Most games have a so called main menu, from where the player can access the different features the game presents, for example help, options, high scores, or the game itself.
While main menus in games are often accessed by pausing the game, displaying the menu at all times are more common in generic websites and mobile applications. This choice was a trade-off between game and application functionality, and the end result was chosen due to the easier nav-igation and overview of the application. However, the choice of including a start screen in itself was a trade off in favour of games. The start screen introduces the user to the application’s layout without the noise of additional information.
The start screen also features a subtly flashing text which prompts the user to action. The text directs the user to either access the menu or simply tap the middle of the screen to continue forth.
