Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 425–433 | Cite as

Designing intergenerational play via enactive interaction, competition and acceleration

Original Article


We report on the design process and the design rationales of a physical mini-game, to be played by seniors and youngsters. First, we explain that we seek enactive interaction, rather than physical action. Next, we elaborate on how competition correlates with social interaction, relying on FIRO theory. Then, we analyze how the sensor technology within the WiiMote affords acceleration. Via an evaluation of existing physical mini-games, seniors and youngsters empirically verify these three design rationales on enactive interaction, competition and acceleration. We conclude that these rationales result in ease-of-use, equality-in-ease-of-use and visibility-of-player-action, which in turn stimulate competition and consequently intergenerational play. Finally, we present the design and user evaluation of our physical mini-game, designed in accordance with these rationales.


Intergenerational play Social interaction Competition Seniors Youngsters Physical gaming Enactive interaction 



We like to thank all the seniors and youngsters who participated in the e-Treasure design process. Furthermore, this research project would not be possible without game developer Jelle Husson, usability specialists Gerrit Vos en Rogier Vermaut, digital artists David Molenberghs and David Dils and our project coordinator Stef Desmet.


  1. 1.
    de Jong Gierveld J (2001) Ouderen in Europa. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Accessed 18 Dec 2009
  2. 2.
    IJsselsteijn W, Nap HH, Kort YD, Poels K (2007) Digital game design for elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 2007 conference on future play. ACM, Toronto, Canada, 2007, pp 17–22. doi: 10.1145/1328202.1328206
  3. 3.
    Tarling A (2005) Older people’s social and leisure time, hobbies and games. Masters Thesis. University of Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kern D, Stringer M, Fitzpatrick G, Schmidt A (2006) Curball—a prototype tangible game for inter-generational play. In: IEEE international workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, WETICE’06Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vetere F, Nolan M, Raman RA (2006) Distributed hide-and-seek. In: Proceedings of the 18th Australia conference on computer-human interaction: design: activities, artefacts and environments. ACM, Sydney, Australia, pp 325–328Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Schutter B, Vanden Abeele V (2008) Meaningful play in elderly life. In: Proceedings of ICA 2008, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanden Abeele V, De Schutter B, Husson J, Vos G, Annema J (2008) e-Treasure: fostering intergenerational play by means of a digital game. In: Proceedings of meaningful play ‘08, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borland S (2007) Elderly ‘addicted’ to Nintendo Wii at care home. Accessed 2 March 2009
  9. 9.
    Bruner JS et al (1966) Studies in cognitive growth. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson J (1977) The theory of affordances. Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucas K, Sherry JL (2004) Sex differences in video game play: a communication-based explanation. Commun Res 31:499–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schutz W (1958) FIRO; 3-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Rinehart, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sherry JL, Lucas K, Greenberg BS, Lachlan K (2006) Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In: Playing video games: motives, responses, and consequences, pp 213–224Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jansz J, Martens L (2005) Gaming at a LAN event: the social context of playing video games. New Media Soc 7:333–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Schutter B (2008) Never too old to play: the appeal of digital games to an older audience. Games Cult J Interact Media. Sage, CA (in press)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jansz J, Tanis M (2007) Appeal of playing online first person shooter games. Cyberpsychol Behav 10:133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mandryk RL, Inkpen KM (2004) Physiological indicators for the evaluation of co-located collaborative play. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp 102–111Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ravaja N, Saari T, Turpeinen M, Laarni J, Salminen M, Kivikangas M (2006) Spatial presence and emotions during video game playing: does it matter with whom you play? Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 15:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gajadhar B, de Kort Y, Ijsselsteijn W (2008) Shared fun is doubled fun: player enjoyment as a function of social setting. In: Fun and games, pp 106–117Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frazer A, Argles D, Wills G (2007) Is less actually more? The usefulness of educational mini-games. In: Conference or workshop item. Accessed 18 Dec 2009
  21. 21.
    Mueller F, Gibbs MR, Vetere F (2008) Taxonomy of exertion games. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: designing for habitus and habitat. ACM, Cairns, Australia, pp 263–266. doi: 10.1145/1517744.1517772
  22. 22.
    Mueller F, Agamanolis S, Picard R (2003) Exertion interfaces: sports over a distance for social bonding and fun. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp 561–568Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kopchak J (2008) Wiimote technology exposed! How Nintendo Wii Controller Works. Accessed 1 March 2009
  24. 24.
    Norman DA (2002) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Kort YAW, Ijsselsteijn WA (2008) People, places, and play: player experience in a socio-spatial context. Comput Entertain 6:1–11. doi: 10.1145/1371216.1371221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Losowsky A (2005) Eye life. Losowsky. Accessed 28 Feb 2009
  27. 27.
    Dalsgaard P, Hansen LK (2008) Performing perception—staging aesthetics of interaction. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 15(3):1–33. doi: 10.1145/1453152.1453156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.eMedia Lab, GROUP T-Leuven Engineering College, (Association K.U.Leuven)/CUO, K.U.LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.eMedia Lab, GROUP T-Leuven Engineering College, (Association K.U.Leuven)/CMC, K.U.LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations