 Mae hyn yn meddwl i'r awddi a'r llwyddi a'r llwyddi. Probably. Arall, nesaf i'r layered llwyddi wedi'i gweld ystod i amlwgau gwirio, ond regis gynnig hefyd? Yu beth, mae'r llwyddi wedi'u cael ei ddwynt? Rwyf yn siŵr meddwl i'r llwyddi. Rwyf amddangos. Felly nesaf, mae'n meddwl i'r llwyddi. Mae hefyd yn gweithio eu chyrwag byddi. Mae'n caeni gafodd mewn prysgwyll fel cyfnodd meddwl, ond iddo gan gwaith. Forwydd wedi nhw ystod amser oherwydd yn y bydd. Rydw i ymweld! Adolwch yr ystod. Ychydig iawn ddweud, rydych chi'n wneud y ysgol, nhw e'n wneud y flath. Yr ladwn wedi ei amser unig. Yn rydych chi'n iddynt, I can't, the monkey can't eat your food. It's just some random thing that pops up there. I don't know, if I saw on the corner of the page where I put pop for the funny, I'd click it just for the votes on that page but I don't think it makes a difference in the particular interaction. For long ago I could see how that can subconsciously or indirectly cause ...angol perwyr sydd wedi wneud, ond y gweithio gyda'w brosesion o'r adwicht sy'n ddigon... ...og byddwch y ffgwrdd a'u ddim yn fawr o'r swydd. Mae'r ddigon yn deall yn wneud, mae hynny'n gyntaf hyn. Maen nhw dwi'n cydwydd y ffordd. A chael yn gŷn o'r ddaf so… Mae'n byw ddych chi yn cael ei bod yn gweld pwy o fod yn hyd. Mae'n gweld pwy o fod yn gŷn yn gŷn, ac mae'n ddigon yn digon. Mae'n ddigon nol i chi. I thought it would be about re-gamingification. I saw an example of re-gamingification where a tech company used recycling bins to return to the game. There was light flashing, high score and loads of noises. The more your site went quicker, the harder the score you get. ...a'r cyfrwyng, ond wedi bod yn y synodd peri o'r testau – dyma yn ceisio'r cyfrwyng hynny, ond rwy'n gwyranion yn bobl. Gweithio i'r cyfrwyng, o'r cyfrwyng yn cael eu chi提byd. A ma wnaeth mae hi i chi i ddim erioed o'r siwr? Ym Ynni, ac mae hi i chi i ddim eisiau mynd i chi i ddim sydd wedi'u'n cyfrwyng yn gynghyd i ni. Ieis yn ei wneud yn eu sylins i'r prifade? They're different. No, no, no, no, because there are also specific holes for different recycling and it got more people recycling more often, because, yeah, they're actually going craig, so it's just the ground of bim so it works really well. So that's one example, we can say that that's quite a good thing because it ends, so is it really a game or is it gamification, because if it ends then it's going to seem like again. If it continued over, and still there was continuing increasing people's recycling Mae beth yw'r cynox-cynghwyr, os yw'r cyx-cynghwyr, i gael draws, sy'n ei gael psyllfa o'r gwahane o gy槐au'r cyx-cynghwyr. Mae hynny'n gyhoedd, naet nesaf, naes fiam? Yn y gael neglai ddweud o'r cyx-cynghwyr, yn gweithio fe gafodd yr cyx-cyngwyr, dwi'n gynghwyr nesaf, da chi'n gael peidiol mewn o'r cyx-cynghwyr lod o hyd o'r cyx-cyngwyr. Felly, ydych chi'n gweld ythoddiad ac felly ffawr'r bwysig fydd yn gweithdoedd i rhaid i ddweud ymgwrdd i gael, a sydd wedi'u gewch yn y ffacolion gwneud gwasanaeth gael. Felly, yw'r amser yn ddoddiad, fyddai'n gweithio'r adau, a allwn amser yr adau sydd wedi gweld eich gwneud. Mae hi'n dda chi'n wedi'u fan y ffacolion gwaith am gyfan hwnnw? Wyddech chi'n ffacolion gweithiau am hwnnw i gymorth o hwn? ... if only it home is, for example ground up gamification, that is being designed specifically so that it gets people on board. What is it? You delay your condition groups we would need to perform in the community complex mathematics. This is probably a strong protein volume and setting up on the net search. So that is actually how it should be. Mae'r holl workerser maen nhw wedi gweld allan fod yn digwydd am hynny. Rwy'n ddargarfodamos i ddim yn diemethol i'r ardal yn y cyfnod. Rwy'n ddim yn ddigwydd arddangosio am y cwmhwn. Mae oedd sut yn i ni'n fyddo eitb o'r chwarae. Ar gyfnoddwch chi'n ddigwydd ar gyfnodd i chi'n gweinyddol. Beth chi'n gweithio'n bod yn gwneud rywbeth eti ni'n gweithio'n gwneud ar gyfnodd. Welcome, welcome. If they tie in with a large scale, an tiny factor, a large scale, or CP manufacturer... but are quite easy to do from what this German scene has got to some of the best completed core or completely subverted as it's just driving towards sales. Yes. This is kind of the difference. It may change because it- it's just going to make it different as fast as it may. It may change because of the way they drive around being, in terms of their time. Yeah that's true.ACE sells of the giflwg union. And they may not have a leave course, but there's not a lot of people getting involved, how can you get more people there? And people are generally... Most people have some sort of competitive name, so adding a leave course will get more people involved. Yeah, that's true. So adding a leave on might be important. I was saying, we were talking about it, it might have people might associate bad things with it because the end of it's trying to be useful. yn y fyddiad. Fe rywbeth yn cwmhreidd, mae rhaid i'r fyddiaden nhw i'r bwrdd o'r ystod yn yw'r wynebydd. Fe yw o'r hwnnw, mae'n fyddiad yn ei fyddiad, mae'n bair o'r sgwrdiaeth fel hyn. Ye, rywbeth efallai mae'r bair o'r fyddiadau'r fyddiadau, yn y sgwrdiaeth fel hyn o'r ddechrau'n y gallu llwyll. Yes, that's true. cyldedgef! Diolch anodhau! Roedd yw siarad am ystyried eu pasod ym y byw tsifth ac yn ymddy eu renghaus ruidu miad! A daodd! Fo'r cymunedau miad FiE, a any ryflaw arwe â'r halau Third up? A o'r cy польз했? Roedd anodd ahog yn det lan i ni o qualŲus? Mae dwi'n gweithio arnyn ni'r skeifer yn y rhaid, ond unrhyw o'u niol i Byllstar continues ni ni'n gallu nesaf. So ond er mwyn llawer i'r hyfforddiant mewn eu proffai r сохранio. It could be part of the information for their immediate inclusion also it's you who knows a lot more about employers in search of your specific qualifications. It's somebody who might think I've got a lead to the account and I haven't got that much enough for this matter. Where's the take on where you can't need this much information. That's most likely to put it on now because it's good for them at the front. That's true, that's true, any more. No? Okay. Any arcade? We're going to have a look at this, so we can see this is a bit more of a nice weight in five minutes. I should've kept it up by a bit, so we'll see what we can do if we haven't. It gives a bit more of an application, so we can finally have it to make this full screen. This is the story of a drink that became a drug that became so I became a goat. Stone Family's Day... Don't cry anything I try to saw you! succession of power became unithèmth, keeping them safe and safe... the maddest monthly notice is this unithèmth, I'll only feel it from your face... If you go and switch now or then promise to meet your new people... Commander-in-chief... Alison has several deadlines pilaning up on her right now and honestly she probably deserves a week off at this point anyway. If refreshing your Facebook wall is more exciting than school or work, something's wrong. Hence gamification. At its most basic, gamification simply takes all those scanner box techniques we all know so well from earlier episodes, leveling systems, achievements, quests, checklists, rewards, etc. and laders them over existing activities. Scanning bar codes when doing inventory becomes a lot more engaging when there's a progress bar on your bar code scanner showing you how much closer you are to leveling up each time you scan a item. Getting an achievement for going 20 whole days without a customer complaint or for finishing 30 math problems in a single night it practically ensures that no one drops the ball on day 18 or quits doing their math at problem 25. It's the exact same thing that pushes us to just finish this level. There have been studies on it, it works. It's proven to increase workplace productivity, facilitate learning and even make patients take their medicine on time. But this is only the very beginning of how we can gamify our lives. There are a thousand factors we can use to improve on this simple scanner box core. Everything from integrating our school and work experience with the leisure we participate in at our free time to simple aesthetic things like better contextualizing our work and making sure that the theme or setting is psychologically conducive to the activity itself. Kind of like how when you go to Disney World everything down to the trash bins near the line for the rides all fit within the setting and don't break you out of that mindset of enjoying the ride. If we can do this then we can deliver on a vision where we are as excited and energized to engage in our serious lives as much as we are our played lives. There will be less distinction between the two and perhaps someday there won't be a difference at all. All work will be played and all play will help enrich our lives. But there's a really nasty potential flip side to this idea and it's already begun to happen. Companies are beginning to realize that we're no longer cocked by traditional advertising the way we once were. We've been so bombarded by media that we don't even look at billboards anymore. We flip channels through commercials or just fast forward straight through them. We don't even register banner ads on a web page any longer. So they've turned into new tools to compel us to shape our consumption in a way that's beneficial to them. Look at the rewards on your credit cards. The smarter companies have started having you level up for racking on debt. Ratsbar on your frequent flyer program or the achievements that some of these programs are starting to dole out for taking routes that are more economical for them. Even the McDonald's annual monopoly game was an example of gamification seeping into marketing. It directs you toward purchasing soft drinks and fries, the two most profitable items for them by putting the most game pieces per dollar on those items. So give them all that. I don't really want to broadcast my basic thoughts on how to really take this sort of thing to the next level. However, if any of you guys happen to be educators or doctors and you're interested in implementing these sort of tactics into your field, our email address is coming right up in the end credits. Usually James charges a game company as a good bit of money for that kind of consulting web. In your case, he's happy to make an exception. Anything to help make reality a little more fun for everybody. So, yeah, that's about it. Gamification is going to be big and it's probably going to be awesome. Just be wary because somebody out there is going to try and use it against you. Just keep your eyes open. Thanks again to Aaron for the pretty pictures. See you next time. Gamification, there's obviously lots of different opinions on this that can be used for good or bad. So, this one just gives you a little bit extra sort of richness about what kind of things people might be thinking they could use for gamifying, not just the interfaces, but for experiences at large. So, real-world experiences, okay? Okay, so that said, should I gamify your coursework results? Here's the big test to see whether we like gamification or not. And to see what's the negative thing about it. So, we can just have all of your coursework for this coursework. For this course, I'm going to leave the board. So, would that encourage you to do more? Or would it put you off? Or would you then, if you're really not, you know, yeah, maybe if you're not doing so well, would that be an influence? Yes? It would shift the motivation for this, for taking this course from an intrinsic one to an extrinsic motivation, a visual lesson. I guess everything that I've taken from the course is I'm doing it for different reasons. Yes, that's very true. So therefore, it's just about the gameplay and not about the learning experiences or the outcomes that you might be having, which is why you're borrowing, reading all this crap. So, about lots of things that could use gamification, I think it would attract the main purpose of the actual system. Yeah? What about if it's just a really tedious activity, like, I mean, my problem with the, with the sort of, I mean, obviously, you could say listening to music to use activity, but let's not say that. So, with regard to the pricing up or scanning of barcodes, and you've got a leaderboard on your little scanning machine, it seems strange to me that people might not think that the people who aren't doing as much scanning would then just say, well, let's have a reverse competition about who can do less between themselves. You know, so it's quite strange, I think, that people don't think that we as humans do that because we just don't want to be scanning all the time, like, you know, super fast for some reason. It's in both that they don't scan as much and their boss will have something to say to them. Yeah, that's possibly the case, and therefore it's more about, less about a game and more about a threat. Given that, part of the game, if you lose, and you've lost, and there's some kind of, I mean, most things in terms of life, if you lose, then you're afraid of losing because there's some kind of consequence. If people are afraid of doing bad, no, because they think doing bad you just shouldn't do it. I'm not stopping this in the case of you as humans, but anyway, okay. Yes. I guess it also adds this element of all your being monitored, and to a certain extent, that's kind of... I like to say invasive privacy, but that's not quite what I'm going for. It's quite like, you feel like you have no kind of liberty to, you know, like... I'm tired of having to scan it. You know. Okay. Now I'm feeling more wide. Do you see what I mean? Because you feel like you're constantly being monitored by something or someone? Yes. Yes. Is there a concept of, like, team communication? Yeah. I mean, there is... When I was working at the data entry, it wouldn't be this much, this much, this much, this much. But the teams will be using again the data having they got through as a group. It was never going to see without. Did you do it more as part of the team? Of course you did. So, yeah, maybe in these team dynamics, maybe there's some use for it. I'm not sure. I mean, who... You guys have to write... You have to come in and do attendance. I mean, do all the lectures make you take attendance? Some do, some don't. Yeah, no. Is there any more versus that? Yeah. So, I mean, I don't... You don't take attendance either, because I don't care about that, because generally you don't, because I expect you to come or not, and obviously what people don't. So, you know, that's one of the things with this monitoring aspect, that if it's truly a game, you're not thinking that I'm being monitored, and you aren't being monitored. I mean, you might be right that there may be some adverse effect, and that's okay, because games and the real world have adverse effects and something. I'm not quite sure how that would build into how I'd like to be the recipient of that adverse effect. If I wasn't fulfilling what somebody else's idea of what I should do, like for instance, you know, am I doing enough hours in preparation or not? I mean, as long as the lectures are prepared and delivered correctly, does it matter? I don't know. Yeah, I don't think you'd want to gamify everything, because with attendance being, and people just cheat system and just get someone else to sign them in. Yeah. It's like, obviously if you bar up by a discount, you say obviously they can flip the scale and then do less. It says loads of examples of that. In fact, that becomes a game. Just not the game we want. What are we having? Okay. Is that an error in the game itself or the creation of the game? Very well, maybe an error in the creation of the game. Who knows? I mean, I'm not sure. I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve and how you're trying to use the information at the time that you're trying to use it. That's the big thing I think. I think there's also a tendency in management to want to push more and more and more and get more and more and more out of people, but you're not. It doesn't discuss things like quality. It only discusses quantity. And that can be, you know, the sort of leaderboards and these kind of things. It discusses quantity, not quality of the experience, or quality of the work that's been done. If you've done lots of work, but it's all crap, on the leaderboard, I'm the best. Theoretically. Yes. I really want to be confident. I was just going to say I've never seen any application in the long run ever provide a system with a kind of stable value. So I think Reddit is an example of something that's sort of ground up application. It's got points that you've collected to use a mid-series. But over the years, that's sort of a generally progressive user to use a mid-series that aren't necessarily interesting for you, but just things that will get points. And that doesn't necessarily provide the best service on the site. It's the same system, basically. Yeah, that's true. But I think, on the flip side of that, I think my stack-over is an example of the application working, and obviously people aren't just submitting answers, just get points. They're submitting quality answers so that they can get points. So then it is a long-term effect on his working. I think it's, again, as with most things, if you're going to do it well, then it may be, in some ways, there may be something there, but I think it's blurred. OK, so let's say with the engagement itself. But I think there's ways that we can use this kind of stuff, use it to increase engagement. I don't think it's, honestly, I don't think it's, as the video said, the best thing we'll ever do, or we'll miss engagement, and all this kind of stuff. I don't think it's quite like that. Of course, many of our kids are coming in at what sort of stuff, too. OK, let's move on to that. So, as with all the other, as with these other four chapters that you've got, we've got these collated principles, collated engagement concepts. Concepts and engagement are something that we call the next level. So these ones are created from various different books and various different texts, both in gamification and in phonology and the social networking stuff. And so you can see that there's a set of principles which have got a number of overlaps. These principles, and honestly, these principles probably won't be used that much outside because this engagement thing is pretty new, OK? This gamification guy said, you probably haven't heard of it now, but in the next 10 years you will. Maybe you will, but now lots of companies that you might be going to might not generally know about this stuff directly. So, in the user experience way, you won't get that many UX departments who are going on. Or you know about enticements, blah, blah, or whatever. Or look at, I don't know, Duggan's principles of contextual communication. They're not going to be doing this kind of stuff because generally it's just quite new. This bit is quite new. However, it's useful to understand the sort of the work that's out there up to date, so up to this point, 2012, about what's actually, what turns you might come across in the future, OK? But maybe you're going to be the people driving this. OK? These new turns. So, we're up here. I'm not going to go into them much because I've isolated, you'll see in the notes, with rationale, I've isolated sets of turns that I think it's useful. Now, with all of these notes that you're reading, the bit where I'm talking about the isolation of the terms, why I'm combining terms, why I'm discarding them, doesn't matter at this point. I won't be asking you any of this in the exam directly, so if you're going to revise this stuff, it's just crazy, OK? There's a set of principles which I think are reasonably great, and that are imaginative, and there's a set of collated principles. I won't be asking you much about the collated principles. The collated principles don't interest me directly. They're there so that you guys can understand that there are a set, that my one view of it isn't the only one that's. That these ones here, if you do through the medium, you might make your own set of principles which are useful to you. OK, we've got some more, and we've conceded some repetition in these as well because we can make things fun and they're repetitious from the usability side. So, for instance, learning. Learning and learnability is part of the flood, apparently. OK, so that's the case in some cases. Things like narrative and personalisation, social aspects, OK? So these things are all there. And we can see that we've got a number of references for this kind of work. OK, so, lots of principles. I think there's only three, because I only think of that testable, and I think that this isn't really about the principles directly. It's about feel. If you've read... I'm going to keep asking this. Who's read The Terminal of the Ultimate Psychomaintance? One, two, three. OK. In Terminal of the Ultimate Psychomaintance, the concept of feel comes over, OK? So it's something that's difficult to quantify directly, but it's just, in this regard, how we feel quality, how we feel about the work we're doing, how we feel about the mechanics of repairs on motorcycles in Terminal. So feel comes into it quite a lot. And I can talk to you here about these kinds of principles, social, progression, play, OK? Because it's really about feel. Once you actually put this into a game, into a development, you will hopefully have an idea about what the feel or that the users tell you what their feel of it is. Is it too games heavy? Is it too much? Is it like... Everyone used to doing the old days when we used to hand code HTML on a notepad. And we'd always put flashing pink and blinking pink. We'd use blink all over the place, because we could. And it all worked with users. It was like a strobing nightmare, OK? Mainly because we could do it. Now, it's kind of the same with this kind of stuff. Why? Well, it has loads of play elements, game elements, front elements, and it just makes it rock like a rock. OK? You need to get the feel. It's just difficult to quantify. OK? So I'm just giving you these principles, because I think they're overriding principles that you ought to be thinking about, but they're by no means definitive. Yeah? So social. So include aspects of social interaction and social play. We know psychologically, we know psychologically, that people do work better in teams, even though some of you might not like it, or we might not do it. But most of the population work better in small groups, OK? They're used to living in small groups, in family groups, so they're bound to think about it. The most likely, the most used to hunting in small groups, in more natural environments, most of the activities are done in small groups, OK? So people are keyed to this small group work because they feel supported. So give them a feeling, even if it isn't a feeling that they're working in a small group, that there is some person who's supporting you. We talk last week about Linw's cards and how one of the definitive things there is that everybody who's online isn't a bot, they're a real person, and they'll help you. They'll help you immediately. There's lots of people waiting on the chat, OK? It's that easy. There's no phone call to me. So that people feel supported because there's more than men there, OK? It's the same with the engagement that we're going to be talking about. Progression. I think, as with all of the discussions, whether we agree with this notification or not, we've discussed progression. So leaderboards, these percentage complete things, they're all about progression. Are we progressing from level to level? Are we progressing? And how does our progression relate to others, OK? So that progression seems to be something that lots and lots of these phonology and gamification people talk about. And so, if you're thinking about this, it might not be the right solution. It might, just like we've discussed, a force for evil because we're allowing good management to make us work. Or it might be that we're also talking about maybe it allows motivation for a group of people where no individual's picked out. But the group progresses, OK? Better or not. No? Those kind of things might be useful. This progression, this leaderboard stuff. Maybe useful. Play. Fun, plain enjoyment. Well, sometimes, if it's a very boring or repetitive task, why not add something that will make the person or the other laugh or do something for no apparent reason? It doesn't mean anything. It's not necessarily even related to the work. It's just a bit of fun, OK? So that they are taken for a moment out of them not to be what they're doing. Because lots of tasks that require software engineering are going to be monotonous. Now, should we have phonology and gamification on a flight deck of an airline? Probably not, I'm thinking. OK? Because, yes. Possible. Possibly, although I think a lot of the engagement comes through. Possibly. I'm not sure. I mean, I just think that you need to think about this, that sometimes it might be that those finite elements divert them from doing something that they should be doing. If it's helping, yeah, possibly. In those kinds of scenarios where you've got lots of situational awareness required, you've got lots of real-time things that could go terribly wrong, it's probably not such a good idea. However, my mind as I'm telling this is drawn back to the image of a nuclear reactor control room whereby it was a big usability problem actually whereby two buttons which did two different things looked exactly the same and were next to each other. So those two different things could therefore, pulling one of them at the incorrect point gives a critical outcome. I.e. something goes wrong with the reactor. What people have done that, if they could have just easily marked them with a picture or something like this, what they did was they went and got a hand-pull vehicle and a a pressure vehicle to get on a normal radar or something and stuck them on top of the two cars. So then they pull the hand-pull one or they do the logarithm. So they referred to it as can have a bitter or can have a logarithm. So is that fun? Kind of, even though it's a very serious activity but it's there because there's a giant problem. It's to get over a design fault that the designers have created. It's just bland and looks the same. It's the same with other cases with sound mixing desks. Sound mixing desks look very repetitious. It's very difficult. You can easily get it wrong. So therefore, some people put little dots and little weird things over it so that they understand what each of the frequencies are, what they're doing to help them to build their memory. OK. Questions to think about when you design a prototype for social dynamics? Give me some ideas. Don't look at the notes. If we're thinking about social dynamics it's kind of adding a bit more social stuff. I've been speaking about it. People in Europe, you guys can say something about it. I'm going horse. What things do you want to think about? Communicate with other devices. Communicate with other devices? Communicate with other devices? So can you actually move the information around in the social network and just sending it by email directly or something like that? Aspect to it as well. Anything else? These aren't by any way complete but I've got these. Suitable functionality to facilitate collaboration so this is exactly that. Devices. Are aspects of your social communication accounted for, is there a facility whereby you can communicate with a task and then contact somebody else contact a domain expert immediately if you're halfway through the task. I'll get somebody to help you. Microsoft Microsoft is this internally so they have an internal expert system whereby you can whip onto that expert system and somebody who's meant to be the expert in your domain because they're venerable files but they're the real gardener. Have you heard of that term, gardener? Knowledge gardener or wiki gardener? You might hear it so they're called gardeners so somebody is responsible for that thing and the seeds and the answer does a bit of turning over the soil to facilitate but actually something's happening on the wiki gardener so those guys will then help the person at Microsoft who needs to master this problem in the middle of the task. It's like letting you use your engagement. So if you're using jargon or terminology outside of the system can you include that in the system? Can you include things that are in people's mind based on the task that they're doing or the group that they're in? Can you allow them to personalise their interface such that that particular group has a very specific kind of interface? When you did your first year projects with a group hopefully if it was a good group and everybody turned up, you had that shared kind of motivation. So how can you also have that shared motivation? So progression this isn't easy so the specifics of progression can't be easy. What do you want to think about when we're talking about progression? Why? It really is the right session. Because you're getting to go for coding. All right. It's aimed for goals by stages. So if you're going to do progression is there goals that we can attain by stages? Instead of penalising people we're not getting to a stage we reward them by getting to a stage. So you're saying that people at the bottom of the scanning leaderboard are going to get a kicking which isn't going to increase their motivation we say that people at the top get a brownie point and can try to motivate people at the bottom. That's motivation and reward. Narrative flow. So narrative flow is usually important. So therefore understanding whether there's narrative flow whether people understand what this is and how they can actually in normal English language or a normal language after a language understand what they need to do. Say play. Like a game. We spoke last week that people's perception of the user experience starts before they have that user experience and it's also defined by that. In cognitive science as we discussed last week it's generally your perception of if you have a perception that the experience will be bad even if that experience is good it will be bad at the end you'll rate it as being a bad experience. If your perception of the experience is being good and you have a bad experience you're still rated as being better than you would have. That's just the way we are. There's lots of work in psychology and cognitive science on that. So trying to engage people before the even if it's just visual before they even sit down and think about it. Will the user be feeling for enjoyment? Do elements of playing play really include really having a user experience? So you need to think about all those things. Now, might not be the answer. So all this stuff may not be the answer we know just what to say so we don't care. I've talked about in the skeleton and hanging in the visual. The thing that will tell you whether any of this is working properly is the user response and we're going to get to that in the next four lectures about user evaluation and cognitive work. What we're going to ask the users is the basic thing. It doesn't matter what you think. If the user really thinks it's a good idea and maybe really like it You'll see in the notes that I've got a number of reasons I don't think identification is necessarily a great thing. So you need to also have a look at those reasons as well. Have a look at those rationales. What are those comms? OK, looking with them is this is for those who didn't see the Yurx Johnson Cure last week. So generally against performance and arousal we have a bullet which is optimal and after that any more arousal we have performance decreases. OK. This is the easiest bit you've got to do on this course. This emotional design thing. You don't have to read the book. You just have to look at the abstracted thing online. And this abstracted thing online easy pins of them are squeezy. It's very short. So I want a little bit more with your personal opinion. I want a bit more of your personal opinion now that we've done this implicit intangible subjective kind of work that goes along with both aesthetic class week in motion and engagement this week. Pop quiz. Well, we'll be talking about it next week but I'm not sure we're talking about it now but there will be a pop quiz next week. What is the skeptic view of gamification etc etc? Yes. Oh bugger. Yeah. That's not enough time. Well, I'm going to start. I'm going to be babbling on at you about it and I'm going to ring. So I'm going to be sort of ringing it out of you tomorrow in LF 15. OK. Pop quiz for next week. Obviously not next week. OK. This one here is next logic week. So generally well when the next logic week I'll be sure of it. So it needs to be under natural history. Yeah. Pop quiz is going to be tomorrow. Read the notes at the end of the second questions by Easter and all the other stuff you've got to do. If you want to continue about in this please do. I'll see you in a number tomorrow at 5 until 7 LF 15. LF 15. Lea. Llea. Rea.