Interaction Design Theory
ver work with someone and they ask you to design something ‘fun’? First off, I love designing fun experiences, but then again, I’ve never been asked to design a painful experience - 90s era web pages not withstanding. Today, when presented with that challenge, my first response is always, “help me understand what you mean by fun”. The responses can vary between, “fun = X, Y & Z through design that addresses, 1,2 & 3” and “fun is something that you just know… you know it when you see it.” One our Supreme Court Justices used that last arguement in the 60s, so consistency is nice I guess. The trouble is, people have very different ideas of what constitutes fun. Once you understand their version of fun, understanding why it's fun and how it can be relevant is the next challenge.
Recently, when tasked to design a financial health application for financial client, I wanted to look deeper into the theory behind what makes something fun. App stores are filled “better life” type apps, but few of them ever remain engaging beyond a couple months. I referenced a few of these apps for great examples of specific best practices, but I couldn’t manage to find an app as compelling as a games I’ve played for months and sometimes years on end. Instead of diving deeper into building a better version of existing habit and lifestyle apps, I wanted to draw more inspiration from game design. That’s when I was reminded of this article.
I've attached it below. The highlights are mine.
And here's the link to the entire book.
You might Also Like
A Holistic Approach to 'Marketing'
The difference between marketing and conversation is you’re selling someone something - whether it’s a thought, a service, or a product. My problem with traditional marketing is how scattered it quickly gets. The idea behind data-driven marketing helps ground ideas back to measurable results, but it tends to work at a tactical vs. strategic level.Read More