HAL Id: hal-01741154https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01741154

Submitted on 22 Mar 2018

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

A Design Space For Meaningful Structural GamificationStuart Hallifax, Audrey Serna, Jean-Charles Marty, Elise Lavoué

To cite this version:Stuart Hallifax, Audrey Serna, Jean-Charles Marty, Elise Lavoué. A Design Space For MeaningfulStructural Gamification. 2018, pp.LBW073. �hal-01741154�

A Design Space For MeaningfulStructural Gamification

Stuart HallifaxUniv LyonUniversity Jean Moulin Lyon 3CNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205F-69621, LYON, Francestuart.hallifax@liris.cnrs.fr

Jean-Charles MartyUniv LyonUniversité de SavoieCNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205F-69621, LYON, Francejean-charles.marty@liris.cnrs.fr

Audrey SernaUniv LyonINSA-LyonCNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205F-69621, LYON, Franceaudrey.serna@liris.cnrs.fr

Elise LavouéUniv LyonIAE Lyon, Université Jean MoulinLyon 3CNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205F-69621, LYON, Franceelise.lavoue@liris.cnrs.fr

AbstractGamification design is a complex process. Existing game-ful design methods generally focus on high level motiva-tional considerations. In order to provide designers with thetools to create meaningful and motivating game elements,we propose a design space that encapsulates lower-leveldesign decisions, such as visual and operational aspects,during the design process. We also propose a set of designcards and a board that aim to support the design processfor collaborative design sessions.

Author KeywordsGamification; Meaningful Design; User Motivation; DesignSpace; Design Cards

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.m [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI)]:Miscellaneous; H.5.2 [User Interfaces]: User-Centered de-sign; K.8.0 [Personal Computing]: Games

IntroductionOver the past few years, gamification (the use of game el-ements in non game contexts [4]) is used more and moreto provide enjoyable and engaging experiences. Specificdomains such as education [2], or health [17] rely more es-pecially on structural gamification (defined as the use ofgame elements that do not alter the content of the activity

[8]). To be effective, the motivational affordances of suchgamified systems (properties that allow users to satisfy theirpsychological needs[22]) should be designed with a deepunderstanding of human motivation [3, 22]. Recent studiesemphasise the importance of meaningfulness in the designprocess [14, 3, 16]. Game elements should make sense tousers, creating explicit connections to the given activity, andsupporting feelings of competence, autonomy and related-ness, identified as essential in Self-Determination Theory[19, 22, 16]. On the contrary, non-meaningful elements maybe ignored or worst may demotivate users [16, 3].

Design space

Why?Behaviour ChangeAutonomyBehaviour EncouragementBehaviour DiscouragementPerformance

What?GranularityActivityActionOperation

How? (Content)Dynamic + MechanicRewards

PointsCollectablesUseful items

GoalsSelf defined GoalsExternally defined Goals

TimeTimersSchedules

Self RepresentationSkills

Social InteractionTeamsTradingDiscussion

ProgressTask ProgressionCompared to others

Table 1: The proposed designspace for game elements (firstpart)

Even if gameful design methods have emerged recently [3,22], affording engaging experiences in non-game interac-tive systems remains challenging. During design sessionsdesigners, developers and other stakeholders, who maynot have the same level of expertise regarding gamifica-tion, have to select relevant game elements and decidehow to implement them for a concrete situation. They lackguidance on choosing among a huge number of elementsconsidering their impact on motivational affordances. As aresult, they are often confined to use only a subset of pre-defined well-known elements as pointed out by Tondello etal. [23], reducing creativity in the design process.

This work aims to overcome these limitations by guidingstakeholders during collaborative design sessions. We pro-pose to extend the emerging concept of meaningful gamifi-cation to operational and visual aspects, bringing togetherHCI practices and gamification. We present a design spacefor game elements specification that encapsulates nine de-sign dimensions to consider in the design process. We alsopresent a set of cards designed to facilitate the collaborativeexploration of the design space during design workshopsand a board used to structure the design process.

Gamification design approachesDifferent approaches have emerged from practitioners andresearchers, either from HCI or gamification, to support andstructure the gamification design process. Readers can re-view state-of-the-art papers for a presentation of existinggamification design processes [3, 22, 15]. Global designprocesses generally offer high-level guidelines to considerthe context and suggest the following steps: define the mainobjective, understand the user motivation, identify the gamemechanics and analyse the effect of gamification [24, 9].However, lower-level design decisions (i.e. interface designand visual aspects) are poorly supported although they canalso play an important role in improving user experience[14]. Deterding introduced more operational aspects withthe concept of design lenses and skill atoms [3]. However,these approaches offer poor guidance regarding customisa-tion and implementation of elements for a given context. Tochoose among elements, various lists of game mechanicsare proposed [23], but the high number of elements in theselists make their usage difficult.

To guide design sessions, Marache-Francisco and Brangier[14] provide designers with a toolbox for gamification thatsupport two design steps: the context analysis and the iter-ative conception of the gamification experience. Designerscan rely on a conception grid and decision-trees consistingof questions which guide element selection. Other worksprovide design cards, traditionally used in design practice tofoster creativity insuring a common vocabulary and sharedunderstanding among participants [12]. These cards oftencorrespond to design steps (such as [5]) or at fairly highabstract level.

Design space for meaningful game elementsDesign spaces are traditionally used in HCI for identifyingalternatives and structuring decisions in the design phase

[21]. We present a design space that encapsulates ninedimensions to consider regarding operational and visualaspects of elements for meaningful structural gamification(see table 1 for a summary). These dimensions serve toanswer 5 questions that designers have to consider [16]:Why is the game element used? What is the focus of thegame element? How does the game element work (con-tent)? Who is concerned by the game element? and How isthe game element shown (presentation)?

Design space (Cont.)

Who?Actor

UserGroupCommunity

RangeUserGroupCommunity

How? (Presentation)Visibility

BeforeDuringAfterAlways

StyleLiteral formRelated to the domain

FormatRelativeAbsolute

PrecisionPreciseFuzzy

Table 1: The proposed designspace for game elements (secondpart)

Behaviour change (Why?)Gamified systems aim to engage users in changing theirbehaviour or achieving their goals. This dimension helpsdesigners reflect upon the design rationale behind thegame element. We identified from the related works fourbehaviour changes according to designers’ goal: Autonomy[2], Behaviour Encouragement, Behaviour Discouragement[10], and Performance [24].

Granularity (What?)According to the Activity Theory [11], an activity is per-formed by a subject in response to a specific need or mo-tive in order to achieve an objective. By inciting designersto reflect on the granularity level, we lead them to questionif the game element should address the main motive of theusers (linked to the activity; i.e. running), their sub-goals(linked to actions; i.e. a 5km run) or conditions to realise theactions (linked to operations; i.e. stretching before runningor breathing exercises).

Dynamic and Mechanic (How - Content?)For meaningful gamification, designers have to decidewhich game dynamic and mechanic the game elementshould implement. Based on the theoretical frameworksMDA (Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics) [7] and DMC (Dy-

namics Mechanics Components) [24] and on well-establishedgame dynamics and mechanics, we list 6 commonly usedgame dynamics , and classify some mechanics within eachdynamic. As we focus only on structural gamification, weexclude elements such as Storytelling or Quests that are di-rectly linked to the content. Furthermore we also do not usethe MDA levels as-is, using only on the described elementsthat can be adapted for gamification.

Actor and Range (Who?)These two dimensions refer to the actor who uses the ele-ment (actor ) and who can see the game element (range):an individual user, a group of users, or a community. Thesedesign choices are crucial as they impact the type of regu-lation intended [6]. Individual users can self-regulate theiractivity individually or by comparison with others to achievepersonal goals. Game elements shared by a group of userscan help them co-regulate their own activities according totheir own personal goals but also support shared regulationthat requires interdependency and the complete coopera-tion of participants toward a common goal.

Visibility (How - Presentation?)Schön [20] assumed that reflection can occur both duringthe activity being performed (reflection-in-action) and afterthe activity, e.g. when mentally reconsidering it (reflection-on-action). The timing in which the game element is shownto the user can have an impact on the reflection process.We add a third value "before" since we can also incite usersto establish goals and plan strategies.

Style (How - Presentation?)Visual aspects of the gamified system play an importantrole in the perception of gamification affording an appeal-ing and immersive experience [13]. The Style dimensionhelps designers decide whether the game element shouldhave a simple literal form (e.g. a basic progress bar) or one

more related to the domain (e.g. a heart that fills up whenyou go to the gym to promote healthy living). Using domain-dependant metaphors can favour explicit connections withthe given activity as recommended by Nicholson [16]. How-ever, the choice depends on users’ intrinsic motivation forthe domain and an independent style can reduce the risk ofuser’ amotivation.

Figure 1: The "visibility" card.

Figure 2: The four secondaryschool teachers interacting with thedesign cards and board during theworkshop.

Format (How - Presentation?)Prensky pointed out [18] that having a clear end state (i.e. a"win point") can increase performance. However, for someusers "learning stops when goals are achieved" [2]. There-fore we suggest to consider presenting the game element ina relative (e.g. a score that shows four points out of a pos-sible ten) or absolute format (e.g. a score that only showsfour points) depending on the motivational context (users’profile or type of activity).

Precision (How - Presentation?)Designers have also to consider the precision of informa-tion presented in the game element. For some users, givingprecise feedback on the activity performance can be mo-tivating [1]. However for less competitive users, showingexact information can be demotivating [17, 23]. Thus wesuggest to consider two possible values: precise (e.g. aleaderboard where the actor is shown to be 6th out of 14users) and fuzzy (e.g. a leaderboard where actor is shownas in the "Top Half" of users).

Tools to explore the design spaceThe design space presented allows for a systematic consid-eration of possible choices when designing game elements.This task may remain complex, especially if the differentstakeholders involved in collaborative design sessions donot have the same expertise in gamification. To support thedesign process and to guide designers in the design space

exploration, we created a set of design cards.Each cardrepresents a particular dimension and contains the possiblevalues, as well as examples, or explanations of the choicesand possible impacts on users’ motivation (for instance fig-ure 1 shows the Visibility card).

The cards are designed to be used with a board structuringthe different steps to perform during the definition of a gameelement. In addition to the properties defined by the de-sign space, the board supports high-level decisions such asusers and context considerations of the given activity (alsoidentified in [5, 14]), and lower-levels specifications such asvisualisation (element mock-ups) and operational rules. Wedecided to integrate these aspects only on the board sincethey are closely linked to the domain to gamify and wouldprobably have too many forms or values to be representedby specific cards. These domain-dependant elements arethus instantiated during design sessions for each contextand game element.

Testing the design toolsTo test the design space and its exploration with cards andboard, we conducted a design session in an educationalcontext. We held a workshop with four secondary schoolteachers, two teaching engineers, and a game design ex-pert working on a project of gamified mathematics exer-cises (see figure 2). The teachers knew each other and hadpreviously worked together to create maths exercises. Theworkshop lasted four hours. After a quick introduction ofthe materials, roughly 50 minutes were dedicated to contextspecification: determining the users’ profiles and reviewingthe exercises previously created to define actions and oper-ations within the activity. The rest of the session was ded-icated to defining game elements to be used. Participantsdiscussed and agreed on game elements using the cardsand following the steps on the board. For each game ele-

ment, participants used a different board and set of cards.In total seven game elements were designed.

We observed that participants took ownership of the de-sign materials, sharing common ground on the gamificationprocess and favouring communication. As the workshopprogressed, participants were able to converge on designagreements faster. Discussions content aimed both at con-sidering the impacts on students’ motivation and fulfillingthe different stakeholders’ interests. Teachers and gamedesigners succeeded in making decisions regarding oper-ational and visual aspects of each game element, so thatall of the information required to start the elements develop-ment was provided. Regarding creativity, we observed thatparticipants were able to reuse well-known game elementssuch as points or badges, but also to design unique gameelements (see figure 3 for an example).

Figure 3: An example of one of theboards produced during theworkshop. This game element hasbeen designed to encouragestudents’ perseverance. Itimplements the task progressionmechanic, and is only visible to theuser. Instead of a simple progressbar, the participants decided to optfor a more "metaphorical" design.They decided on a tree that growswith each question answered, witha different branch for eachexercise.

B.C. Encourage a behaviour

GranularityActivity (Tree)Action (Branch)

D-M Task ProgressionActor UserRange User

VisibilityDuring (Branch)Always (Tree)

Style Literal formFormat Absolute

Precision Fuzzy

Table 2: The values chosen by theworkshop participants for eachdesign dimension

Generally participants manipulated the cards with ease,however we observed that the participants had difficultiesusing the "Behaviour Change" dimension as they alwaysselected the same behaviour. Further workshops shouldcertainly be held in order to improve the material, and tothink upon the integration within a larger gamification pro-cess. For example incorporating questions from Deterding’sdesign lenses [3] or decision trees from [14].

ConclusionThis work aims to extend the concept of meaningful gamifi-cation to operational and visual aspects of game elements.To help designers in these complex considerations, we pro-pose a design space that can be used for a vast variety ofcontexts (education, health, sustainability, etc.). The de-sign space is accompanied by a set of cards and a boardto facilitate its collaborative exploration during the designprocess. We were able to test our tools during a workshop

held with different stakeholders where we gathered valuablefeedback for their improvement in the future.

AcknowledgementsThis work is a part of the LudiMoodle project financed bythe e-FRAN Programme d’investissement d’avenir, oper-ated by the Caisse des Dépots.

REFERENCES1. Yigal Attali and Meirav Arieli-Attali. 2015. Gamification

in assessment: Do points affect test performance?Computers & Education 83 (2015), 57–63.

2. James Banfield and Brad Wilkerson. 2014. Increasingstudent intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy throughgamification pedagogy. Contemporary Issues inEducation Research (Online) 7, 4 (2014), 291.

3. Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The lens of intrinsic skillatoms: A method for gameful design.Human–Computer Interaction 30, 3-4 (2015), 294–335.

4. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, andLennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements togamefulness: defining gamification. In MindTrek. ACM,9–15.

5. Lauren S. Ferro, Steffen P. Walz, and Stefan Greuter.2014. Gamicards-an alternative method forpaper-prototyping the design of gamified systems. InInternational Conference on Entertainment Computing.Springer, 11–18.

6. Allyson Fiona Hadwin, Sanna Järvelä, and MarielMiller. 2011. Self-regulated, co-regulated, and sociallyshared regulation of learning. Handbook ofself-regulation of learning and performance 30 (2011),65–84.

7. R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek. 2004. A formalapproach to game design and game research. InProceedings of AAAI Workshop on Challenges inGame AI, Vol. 4.

8. Karl M. Kapp. 2013. The Gamification of Learning andInstruction Fieldbook: Ideas into Practice. John Wiley &Sons.

9. Janaki Kumar. 2013. Gamification at work: Designingengaging business software. In InternationalConference of Design, User Experience, and Usability.Springer, 528–537.

10. Tuomas Lehto and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2011.Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smokinginterventions: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of medical Internet research 13, 3 (2011), e46.

11. Aleksei Nikolaevich Leontiev. 1978. Activity,consciousness, and personality. (1978).

12. Andrés Lucero, Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, andJacob Buur. 2016. Designing with Cards. InCollaboration in Creative Design. Springer, 75–95.

13. Cathie Marache-Francisco and Eric Brangier. 2013a.Perception of gamification: Between graphical designand persuasive design. In International Conference ofDesign, User Experience, and Usability. Springer,558–567.

14. Cathie Marache-Francisco and Eric Brangier. 2013b.Process of Gamification. From The Consideration ofGamification To Its Practical Implementation. (Oct.2013).

15. Alberto Mora, Daniel Riera, Carina González, and JoanArnedo-Moreno. 2017. Gamification: a systematicreview of design frameworks. Journal of Computing inHigher Education (2017), 1–33.

16. Scott Nicholson. 2012. A user-centered theoreticalframework for meaningful gamification. Games+Learning+ Society 8, 1 (2012), 223–230.

17. Rita Orji, Lennart E. Nacke, and Chrysanne DiMarco.2017. Towards personality-driven persuasive healthgames and gamified systems. In Proceedings ofSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors ComputingSystem.

18. M Prensky. 2005. Computer games and learning:digital game-based learning’in Raessens, J. andGoldstein, J.(Eds.): Handbook of Computer GamesStudies. (2005).

19. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci. 2000. Self-determinationtheory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, socialdevelopment, and well-being. The AmericanPsychologist 55, 1 (Jan. 2000), 68–78.

20. Donald A Schön. 1987. Educating the reflectivepractitioner: Toward a new design for teaching andlearning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

21. Mary Shaw. 2012. The role of design spaces. IEEEsoftware 29, 1 (2012), 46–50.

22. Gustavo F. Tondello, Dennis L. Kappen, Elisa D.Mekler, Marim Ganaba, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2016.Heuristic Evaluation for Gameful Design. In CHIPLAY’16 Extended Abstracts. ACM, 315–323.

23. Gustavo F. Tondello, Alberto Mora, and Lennart E.Nacke. 2017. Elements of Gameful Design Emergingfrom User Preferences. In CHI PLAY’17, ACM.

24. Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter. 2012. For the win:How game thinking can revolutionize your business.Wharton Digital Press.