1 / 14

Interface Scale & Performance Environment:

Interface Scale & Performance Environment:. Teasing Out the Dimensions of Arcade Gameplay. Jennifer Gee Douglas Wilson CS 376 December 12, 2006. Research Questions. How does scale of input interface affect enjoyment and engagement in game play?

brockd
Download Presentation

Interface Scale & Performance Environment:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interface Scale & Performance Environment: Teasing Out the Dimensions of Arcade Gameplay Jennifer GeeDouglas Wilson CS 376December 12, 2006

  2. Research Questions How does scale of input interface affect enjoyment and engagement in game play? How do public vs. private environments affect enjoyment and engagement in game play? (Can we tease the two apart?)

  3. Main Hypotheses • Larger-scale interfaces are both more enjoyable and more engaging • - Increased physicality • - Research suggests larger display increases immersion - Our own experience designing games for smart walls • 2. Public play less engaging than private play • - People are distracting

  4. The Experiment Four Groups: Private Public 4 Subjects 4 Subjects Tablet PC Touchscreen Wall 4 Subjects 4 Subjects N = 16

  5. The Experiment Squares Attack! 2 minute practice, 7 minute trial

  6. The Experiment • Evaluation Metrics: • 1. Galvanic skin reponse (GSR) • Measures skin conductivity (eccrine sweat glands) • Reflects emotional responses as well as cognitive activity • Accepted physiological measure of “fun” (Mandryk, Ravaja) • Players wore two velcro rings on non-dominant hand

  7. The Experiment • Evaluation Metrics: • 2. Distractor Test • - How many of the 5 watermarked letters could they remember? • - The more attention they pay to the visuals, the less engaged they are • 3. Self Report • - Likert scale (1 – 5) • 4. Telemetry • - Score, total distance moved, etc.

  8. Results • Wall users enjoyed the experience more • 3.4 vs. 3.9 (average) on Likert scale • p-value= 0.092 (significant) • … despite the fact they scored fewer points and rated themselves as less skilled

  9. Results • Tablet users remembered more letters • 1.75 vs. 0.5 (average) letters • p-value= 0.037 (significant) • Larger interface more engaging?

  10. Results • Wall users exhibited higher GSR percentile scores • 57.5% vs. 43.6% (average, normalized) • p-value= 0.050 (significant) • In essence, emotional arousal more sustained • Corroborates self-report, distractor test findings

  11. Results • Most differences between public and private conditions were not statistically significant • Private condition participants scored better (p-value = 0.060) • Private condition participants used larger % of screen(p-value= 0.029)

  12. Game Design Lessons • Wall users complained about tired arms • - Only a seven minute game, but constant dragging is a lot of work • On the tablets, player forearm blocks a much larger portion of the screen • - Maybe squares should only enter from two or three directions?

  13. Future Direction…? • Corroborate results with different game genres • Corroborate results with different input types, modalities • More granular examination of the gradient between private and public

  14. Thank You to… • Bjoern • Lilly Irani • Scott and Dave

More Related