Personal Technologies

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 117–122 | Cite as

Analysing fun as a candidate software requirement

Abstract

Analysis of concepts related to “fun” is used to suggest the main areas where fun may be important to software design. The issue is important as many analyses and design methods fail to allow for designs aimed at user enjoyment, even though computer games are now a major industry. The main cases seem to be either where enjoyment is the chief aim (requirement) of the design, or where learning is important. The phenomena of “flow” experiences are also important here, and raise the issue of designing for desirable cognitive modes of interaction, as well as for desired end results. However the relationship of learning and fun, while clearly important, is complicated.

Keywords

Computers Design methods Flow Fun Motivation 

References

  1. 1.
    Dowell J, Long J. Towards a conception for an engineering discipline of human factors. Ergonomics 1989; 32(11): 1513–1535Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dowell J, Long J. A conception of the Cognitive Engineering design problem. Ergonomics 1998; 41(2): 126–139Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rieber LP, Smith L, Noah D. The value of serious play. Educational Technology 1998; 38(6); 29–37 http:// itech 1.coe.uga.edu/faculty/lprieber/valueofplay.html (visited 13 March 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malone TW. What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. 1980 Technical Reparc CIS-7 Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malone TW, Lepper MR. Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In: Snow RE, Farr JJ. (eds) Aptitude learning and instruction: III Conative and affective process analysis. Erlbaum, London, 1987: 223–253Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neal L. Implications of computer games for system design. In: Diaper D, Gilmore D, Cockton G, Shackel B (eds) Human Computer Interaction: INTERACT '90. North-Holland, Oxford, 1990; 93–99Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Csikszentmihalyi M, Csikszentmihalyi IS. (eds). Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New York, 1990Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones MG. Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments. ITForum (email list:invited paper posted 7 December 1998) and [WWW document] URL: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hedden C. A guided exploration model of problem-solving discovery learning Ph.D. Dissetation; University of Washington, 1998. Also http://learningtech.com/diss.html (abstract visited 2 May 1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hedden C. Re: ITFORUM paper #30 (Jones). Email message to ITForum, 6 December 1998. Also http:// itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/30-5.htmlGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutchins EL, Hollan JD, Norman DA. Direct manipulation interfaces. In: Norman DA, Draper SW (eds) User centered system design. Erlbaum, London, 1986 87–124Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langer EJ. The power of mindful learning. Addison-Wesley, NY 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watzlawick P (ed). The invented reality: how do we know what we believe we know? Contributions to constructivism. W. W. Norton, New York, 1984Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marton F, Hounsell D, Entwistle N, (eds.) The experience of learning. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1984Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boud D, Feletti G. The challenge of problem based learning. Kogan Page Ltd, London, 1991Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rieber LP. Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games Educational Technology Research and Development 1996; 44(2): 43–58Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Draper SW. Practical problems and proposed solutions in designing action-centered documentation. In: Carroll JM (ed) Minimalism beyond the Numberg funnel. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998; 349–374Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Draper SW, Oatley K. Action centered manuals or minimalist instruction? Alternative theories for Carroll's minimal manuals. In: Holt PO, Williams N (eds.) Computers and writing: state of the art. Intellect Books, Oxford and Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1992, 222–243Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations