Designing Interactive Outdoor Games for Children

Part of the Gaming Media and Social Effects book series (GMSE)


Mobile outdoor games for groups of children have emerged recently as a credible technological proposition and as an area of research and development that promises substantial benefits for children regarding a more active lifestyle and the development of social skills. This chapter examines specifically the design of Head Up Games, which are outdoor games that support embodied interaction and where players are collocated, e.g., in a playground, alley, park; the traditional loci of children’s play over centuries. Designing such games and the emerging gaming experience presents its own set of challenges, such as designing the interaction of a group, ensuring pace in the game, and fairness for different contexts and groups of players. Not least, the added value of enhancing outdoor play and games with technology needs to be ensured. We describe some of the lessons learned from the design of a few of these games, how different design methods may contribute to the design process, and methodological issues concerning the early design, the prototyping, and the evaluation of these games.


Games for change Serious games Sustainability Behavior change Procedural rhetoric Emergent dialogue Persuasion Design framework Design guidelines 


  1. Bekker M, Beusmans J, Keyson D, Lloyd P (2003) KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children. Interact Comput 15:187–202. doi: 10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00007-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benford S, Rowland D, Flintham M et al. (2005) Life on the edge: supporting collaboration in location-based experiences. In: Proceedings Chi 05. ACM, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp 721–730Google Scholar
  3. Brynskov M, Ludvigsen M (2006) Mock games: a new genre of pervasive play. In: Proceedings 6th conferences Designing Interaction systems ACM, University Park, PA, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  4. Costikyan G (2002) I have no words and I must design: Toward a critical vocabulary for games. In: Proceedings of the computer games digital cult conferences, pp 9–33Google Scholar
  5. DeKoven B (2002) The well-played game: a playful path to wholeness. Writers Club Press, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  6. Dindler C, Eriksson E, Iversen OS et al (2005) Mission from mars: a method for exploring user requirements for children in a narrative space. In: Proceedings of 2005 Conference Designing Interaction for Children, pp 40–47Google Scholar
  7. Druin A (1999) Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. Chi Is Limit. ACM, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, pp 592–599Google Scholar
  8. Fullerton T, Swain C, Hoffman S (2004) Game design workshop. Focal Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  9. Gielen MA (2008) Exploring the child’s mind—contextmapping research with children. Digit Creat 19:174–184. doi: 10.1080/14626260802312640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hennessy E, Heary C (2005) Exploring children’s views through focus groups. In: Greene S, Hogan D, (eds) Researching children’s experience Approaches Methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, pp 236–252Google Scholar
  11. Hughes L (1983) Beyond the rules of the game: why are Rooie Rules nice? In: Manning, F. (ed) The world of play Leisure press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Kern D, Stringer M, Fitzpatrick G, Schmidt A (2006) Curball - a prototype tangible game for inter-generational play. IEEE Computer Society, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  13. Lundgren S (2008) Cover story - designing games: why and how. Interactions 15:6–12. doi:  10.1145/1409040.1409042 Google Scholar
  14. Markopoulos P, Read JC, Macfarlane S, Höysniemi J (2008) Evaluating Children’s Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. McCurdy M, Connors C, Pyrzak G, et al. (2006) Breaking the fidelity barrier: an examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success. In: Proceeding of Sigchi In: Proceeding of Sigchi conference on human factors of computer system ACM, New York, pp 1233–1242Google Scholar
  16. Medlock MC, Wixon D, Terrano M, et al. (2002) Using the RITE method to improve products: A definition and a case study. Usability Professionals’ AssociationGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogers Y (2011) Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions 18:58–62. doi:  10.1145/1978822.1978834 Google Scholar
  18. Rogers Y, Price S, Fitzpatrick G, et al. (2004) Ambient wood: designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. In: Proceeding of IDC 04. ACM, Maryland, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  19. Rossiter JR, Lilien GL (1994) New “brainstorming” principles. Aust J Manag 19:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Salen K, Zimmerman E (2003) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, Illustrated edition. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Scaife M, Rogers Y, Aldrich F, Davies M (1997) Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. In: Proceeding of Sigchi conference on human factors of computer system ACM, Atlanta, Georgia, United States, pp 343–350Google Scholar
  22. Sellen KM, Massimi MA, Lottridge DM, et al. (2009) The people-prototype problem: understanding the interaction between prototype format and user group. In: Proceeding of Sigchi conference on human factors of computer system ACM, New York, pp 635–638Google Scholar
  23. Soute I, Lagerstrom S, Markopoulos P (2013) Rapid prototyping of outdoor games for children in an iterative design process. In: Proceeding of 12th international conference IDC, ACM, New York, pp 74–83Google Scholar
  24. Soute I, Kaptein M, Markopoulos P (2009a) Evaluating outdoor play for children: virtual vs. tangible game objects in pervasive games. In: Proceedings of the 8th International conference on interaction design and children. ACM, Como, Italy, pp 250–253Google Scholar
  25. Soute I, Markopoulos P, Magielse R (2009b) Head up games: combining the best of both worlds by merging traditional and digital play. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 14:435–444. doi: 10.1007/s00779-009-0265-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stroebe W, Nijstad BA, Rietzschel EF (2010) Chapter four—beyond productivity loss in brainstorming groups: the evolution of a question. In: Zanna MP, Olson JM (ed) Advance exports society psychology Academic Press, pp 157–203Google Scholar
  27. Valk L de, Rijnbout P, Bekker T et al (2012) Designing for playful experiences in open-ended intelligent play environments. In: Proceedings Iadis international conference on game and entertainment technologies lisbon. Portugal, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  28. Verhaegh J, Soute I, Kessels A, Markopoulos P (2006) On the design of camelot, an outdoor game for children. In: Proceedings 2006 conference on interactive designing child ACM, Tampere, Finland, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  29. Virzi RA (1989) What can you learn from a low-fidelity prototype? In: Proceedings human factors ergonomics society annual meeting, pp 224–228Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignUniversity of Technology EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations