 I won't you take me down still so I'll take three mean and listen to it Ok, so we've got a few bits to talk about before we get started really. This lecture we'll be having on Thursday night, Thursday evening. Thursday night, Thursday evening. I'll say evening. From five until 7, it's going to be in half five feet. It's not going to be in here because there's some central time taking image in that felly mae'n cael ei wneud i'w L15 ar y stwm ac mae'n gweithio'n dylunio'r dd�lo'n ddiddordeb Dyna ddiwrnod eich bod felly eich bod ni'n gweithio'n gail o'r dysgu? Ddiddordd yn ddiddordeb, mae'n gweithio ddiddordeb yn ddiddordeb yn gweithio'r ddiddordeb felly mae'n ddiddordeb i'ch bwysig Oh, now I was listening to that at a cool, atop place, you didn't like it? Come on, you freak! It's great! Okay, well... It was the thing that started to play, it sounded back with Doug Gianni. No! Do you want vodka? Do you want vodka? Three cards, three things. Sorry, I was having a special arena, and the arena thought it was three cards, three pens. I was like, no way it's three cards, three pens, was it one card? Sorry, wasn't it three cards, three pens? It was one card, one me, and then two pens. In the arena thought you had three cards for three pens. Generally, could you read more afterwards? No. So, we're going to ask you. Okay, well, I'll answer the question now. I'm now the mayor of this nut on the fourth square, just so you know. Okay, so the gallery of the visit. You're going to get a questionnaire about it anyway, but who thought it... Just so I can give some quick feedback to the gallery of people. Who thought it was useful and who thought it wasn't useful? Okay, so who thought it was useful? Okay, who thought it wasn't useful if the people weren't? You were almost there. Okay, that's good. Now, I'm not giving the notes out yet because I don't want you to be all freaking out. Okay, because there's a few. So, the notes. So, we've got notes for this time, which are here. Okay? So, these are the notes for this lecture. We'll spread out the time. You decide this, aren't you? Good. Okay, well, I'm too lazy to be bothered about this. Okay, along with these notes, you're going to get the notes for third and one. Okay? Just in case you decide to help in the comment, you're going to look at the video recording instead. I shouldn't have said that because now it's going to be me who can have a room for two hours, but, you know what I mean? Not the little community people at the back there. You've also got an appendix, which you don't have to read, about why Zen and the Archive Mexico maintenance is good for teaching and user experience. It might be something that we need to just look at the... If you could just look at the section headings where it talks about things like perception of user experience and collision of two opposing ideologies. The reference to there, if anybody wants to head it, is a free version of Zen and Archive motorcycle maintenance, which is searchable, and it's online at Caltech. I don't know how Caltech has got a way with it, but it seems a bit dodgy to me, but anyway, what's your reference to it in there? Is that free text phone? Yeah. For your notes for Thursday, which is about an extension to this one, is just looking more about ethics and why we've got them. So in the notes, you've just got the most basic... It's not that basic, the most basic thing you need to do for ethics, okay? Why we've got them, except for what we should be thinking about through search ethics. But actually, there's more to it than that, so if you want to read this on the search ethic on why we've actually got ethics, why we've created why we've got people, participants that are not subjects, then there we are. And finally... Oh, look at this. You can't tell me that you don't get complete notes. Now, this is for a week. You know now that we're not here in a week what these will be, week 10? Yeah? Because we're doing this like tomorrow night, because I know I've got this. So I'm giving you week 10 notes now just in case you want to read them over these to take a sheet. Okay? Why not? We're going to go over these next week. What's next week? Oh, yeah. You'll be scared if I just left the more in your great and satisfied way to the discussions. That's right. This lecture, we're going to like all these notes now. Yes. And this hour last week, either, really now. So if you've been out of the gallery last week, I know that here we say, we can have a revision lecture in which point you need to email me. So the last lecture we do, which might be a double or a single, based on how many comments I have, will be a revision lecture. Okay? So in that revision lecture, you need to send me anything at all you want me to cover again by email. And then I'll build the lecture out of that, out of this stuff I got back from you guys. So instead of me start telling you, yeah, here's a revision lecture, but I'm just going to build. You need to tell me what you don't understand or what you don't have the information of. Okay? I would be safe in realizing that if you can do the self-assessment questions, then you will be good to go for the exam. Okay? So that's the main revision, that's the self-assessment questions. What we will be doing, a revision lecture for two hours or one hour based on whatever it is you might, you know, based on how many emails you get back. Yeah. We'll squeeze it in some now. We've got statistical analysis to do with that. And we've got some notes on real-life development. But real-life development, you don't have to freak out about those notes because you've already had that lecture. It was the BBC lecture that gave you week three, you know, sorry, yeah, week two, lecture three extra. So you don't have to worry about that. But what we have got, the statistical analysis one is the one you want us to look at. Okay? Not necessarily because there's going to be anything to do with statistics at this point on your... In fact, I'll tell you that. There's going to be nothing to do with statistics on your exam. This year. This year. That's for the camera. This year there's going to be nothing under the statistics. But for your year, if you're not wishy, you'll live out of the microphone. Yeah? Okay? So 2012, in the exam, I haven't thought any statistical questions, just because they're right here at the end and we needed a bit more time to actually look into it, I think. But it is, you will, there will be two lectures on the statistical analysis. You should be here for it. If you don't turn up, maybe you're just stupid. So... We'll be watching a nice TV show as well for 40 minutes on the back called The Art of Statistics, which is a very good motivator and then we'll be getting into the often misconceptions around statistics that people have. Like, for instance, this result is more significant than the next lecture. Who's doing statistics? Good. Okay? So, this result is more significant than this result. Have you heard that? And what does it mean? It means that one is much more significant than the other. No! That's not what it means. See? You can talk wrong. That's not what it means. Anyway, we'll get to that. See? That's a book there. Okay. Let's go into this. Right. Obviously, you can watch the website, you know where the website is going to be, and maybe you can click on it using the QR codes. Right. Upwards. Who's read? Obviously, the people who didn't come to the gallery didn't get the gallery lecture, which I gave for an hour. It's a shame of you. So, I'm sure you've read the notes, and you don't know what's going on. So, why don't you note the effective principles? I've been capturing the software correctly. Let's talk about that. Who wants to tell me? Who wants to tell me? Yes? They're difficult to isolate. They're difficult to isolate in testing? You're up there. Okay. So, what is that? Is it about the effects of experience that makes it difficult? You might be able to monitor the user's emotional responses that could be a combination, or is a response to a combination of the different principles that you can't just test one year if it's there? Yeah. Okay. That's good. Anymore? Yes? It varies so much from person to person, and this person relates the possibilities to software in a different way to someone else. Okay. So, this is the thing with user experience. This division between the objective and the subjective, this smushing together is the thing that really defines the user experience. You can say, standard HCI would use ability. Accessibility. It's this coming together with intangibles, which is in the subjective stuff. Why is effective computing different to effective experiences? Who was that? So, I'm going to pick people who were actually listening to my lecture last week. Obviously, nobody was. Anybody? Yes? I'm going to pick people who were actually listening to my lecture last week. So, effective computing is all about computer having emotions, whereas the effective experiences of the user having emotions and experiences of the user. Yes. That's very good. That's the definition. So, the difference is effective experiences about the user's emotional experience interacting with the software system. Whereas effective computing is the work about computers understanding and having emotions centered mainly and co-less mainly around Roslyn Peccall's group at MIT. Okay? Okay. Now, to take from Roslyn Peccall's group from the work that they do there, what things can we take to help us understand better our effective experiences? What kind of devices might we use? Anybody who's there? What devices did we mention? What kind of metrics might we use? Biometrics? Biometrics is what we're going to use, right? So, biometrics we can use. So, things like what kind of things, what kind of biometric stuff exists that we were talking about? Pupil violation. Pupil violation. That's a good one. Anymore? Galvanic skin response. Yes, anymore? Heart rate monitor. Heart rate monitor. Excellent. Yes, absolutely. Okay. So, these kind of biometrics are used to try and understand the emotions of people so that then computers can understand them, but what we can use them for is to use them so that we can understand the experience a bit more in our study. Now, obviously, you've got contentious with galvanic skin response, for instance, because it can show excitement as well as it can show stress. Okay? They're very similar. Yeah? So, you don't quite know what's going on there. So, tell me about excitement. Do we want the experience to be as massively exciting as is humanly possible, or do we not want it to be as massively exciting as is humanly possible? Yeah? There's a point and then the performance goes down. Yeah? What's that called? What's that curve called? Any ideas? It looks like a standard bell curve. That's true. It looks like a standard distribution, but it's actually called a Gertz-Dotson curve. Okay? And that one that you saw last week is the Hebden version. Yeah? That's the Gertz-Dotson curve against performance against arousal. Okay. What other graph did we have there that we talked about? Yes? It's about one that talks about the challenge and the challenge against the level of boredom that people have. Skill level. Yeah, skill level. So, the flow graph is the skill level. So, we've got skill level against challenge and you get boredom at the bottom and anxiety at the top and then there's a band in the middle. Okay? So, that's also what we need to be thinking about. What are the statistics and visual complexity that relate to each other? These are all subsets and the questions which we want to revise. Okay? We'll skip that. How does mounted arcs relate to the principle of flow? I think we'll skip that. You can do that yourselves. And number five, why is motion to be confined? Why am I not possible? This is why we've done that. We've said it's difficult to quantify because it's objective and it's about biometrics. That's one solution to it. Okay? Okay. So, let's look at dynamic experience and what do I mean by dynamic experience? Well, for me, I mean the interplay between people, really. The dynamics between people. Yeah. Now, we could say this is all about a topic called gamification, which we'll get onto. But actually, it comes out of other things which is more about social dynamics. It's about phonology, which is another result of phonology and gamification wrapped up together. Okay? So, we'll look at these in a bit more detail. Now, active, potent, energetic. Okay? That's the kind of thing that comes over when you speak to people when they're talking memory. If they're talking about this in the outside world, not in this lecture theatre, not in, say, academia, they'll be talking mainly only about gamification. Yeah? I don't think that's the whole story, so that's what I'm telling you about the phonology and the other stuff. But they're going to be saying, yeah, the gamification is all about this active, potent, energetic force that you're using for good or ill. Now, I used to, I can't be specific with gamification. I'm still not completely convinced. Okay? And so I used to call it the chicken mami. So the chicken deliciousness, it's just like sprinkles, kind of. You know who knows why? You say, you just stick it on, it makes it all active, makes things happen on the screen, and then people are into it. Okay? We talked about the principle of personality. We've been doing this cars, and she's using a ridiculous, you know, gun, what is it, bubble gun, not bubble gun, paintball gun, and sort of the animations that's going to make her think there's more dynamic and active. And this is safe in some ways. So I just thought that it's kind of this, you know, really there, it's not really deep, it's a digital mami. Now I was wanting this argument with a guy who works for Google, actually, in their UX department, called really Lopez. And we had some kind of argument or discussion about whether it really was deep or not, whether gamification was really deep. And at that point I was saying, it's just crap. And it takes more time. At this point I'm saying, there might be something there. Okay? But, but, I don't think it's as deep as people want it to be. I think, actually, there's an economic reason why people want it to be deep in the games industry because he was only looking around there for that skill set. Yeah? Okay, but, it will be up to you guys to decide. You might think, oh that's not an art piece, it's just not a dinosaur. I don't know what he's talking about, whereas this is the new stuff. Yeah? Okay. So, here we are, Chrome Mami. Okay? So who say, as a creature now, the game of five products are just poorly executed. So that's one thing you need to think of. There is, there are different levels of gamification including things which are called baltons. So these baltons, it's just like, you think, oh, what would be good in a game situation? God's ill. Okay? To anything. It will do. It will be great. It's not something that the game wants. It doesn't mean anything. But I think that most of the critics of gamification, that's taking into account the wide range of execution that that's possible. Gamification can imply that there's a superficial article, or as a use, or as useful, or even fundamental integration. Now this might be true. I don't know whether it's fundamental, but it might very well be useful, possibly, in the right circumstances, I'd say. Okay? Now the cons, the people who don't like it, gamification is invented by consultants of a means to capture the wild, to cover these, that is video games, and to investigate it producing great, fabulous wastelands of big business. Wow. I just love this quote. That's the kind of quote I like. I'm a Ted Nelson kind of guy. It gives vice presidents and brand managers comfort that they're doing it right. And there's some truth in it. You know? That's exactly it. Some people do think that it's just, hey, we'll make our horrible corporate crap really exciting, but it's not going to be super colourful games kind of stuff like it. Yeah, that's it. And we can sell it then to the vice presidents, because hey, we know what we're doing and we're in the suffering it is. And the brand managers love it because, hey, it makes their dull crap look better. But still, in the interaction, it's dull crap. Okay? Now you are, these are two extremes. I think it's somewhere in the middle, as with everything, but most things in life, I think it's these two extremes and there's a balance to be had. But, you know, some of you might go out into the world and then you decide your gamification with people. You do gamification. You very well maybe need to get into companies where you're doing this stuff. So it might be useful. Has anybody done any sort of contract work or done anything based on gamification and kind of integration tools that you guys think do outside stuff now? Okay, well, I mean, it might be, as I say, I think it's useful to know that it's there. How much you believe it is that you need to get an opinion on it. Okay? And that opinion can be modified. But for me, I'm in the middle. I don't think it's... I don't think it's the answer to everything. This one has far more resonance with me. I think a lot of the time it's been big bad managers to just say, yeah, this is just a horrible app. Yeah? I was just wondering. So is gamification basically trying to put kind of a more fun field to the work that you're doing? Yes, so we'll get on to that. But things like, for instance, and I... things like saying league tables. So, for instance, this talk of league table that if you have, like, a little... on your barcodes down where you're pricing products in the supermarket, if you have a little thing that registers how much you've priced, you can see how well we're doing against all the other people pricing those products. So you do faster, faster, faster, faster, faster, because you want to know you're not better or faster because it's fun because you want to win and be higher on the leaderboard. You can also say that things like, for instance, still turning into the stuff we did with sort of studies where people said the reason why they made changes to their energy consumption wasn't because of all the good... the good working, you know, that it would be environmentally friendly. It's because of what their neighbours did. What they were told their neighbours did. Now, there's also stuff that dovetails into that sort of thing. So therefore, you know, you're looking at what other people are doing. And you're pushing along this route to try and... So, for instance, there's some social network apps where they want to take all your data. So if you just give the basic amount of data it says, your data is 23% complete, but your friend's data is 100% complete, which implies your crap, kind of. Or implies you need to give all your data so you're as good as your friend's 100% complete data, because we all want to be 100% complete. That's the idea of it. We all just want to get to the end of the game, at the end of this level. So it's set out like this. So let's have a look at the social dynamics aspects in a little bit more detail before we go on to the full audience when the gamification is still. Now, the social dynamics aspects is what it's time to do. We know that collaboration with users, with other people in the network, makes you more effective. We know this from pair programming. We know it from older users are less hesitant in the choices that they make when they're sitting with another person because they can collaborate together on it. We know this from collaboration, for lots of different kinds of collaborations, we know this from focus groups, where focus groups, you might get more rich information from focus groups because there's a herd of people there. We know this from the knowledge of the wisdom of the crowd, if an institution. So what we think you're now doing with this social dynamics is to say that our interactions are more pleasurable if we feel we've got support, if we feel we've got back up, if we can do jobs together in tandem and power up, as pairs. We're feeling that, and we also feel that our jobs are all that the tasks we're supposed to be doing may take longer, so usability-wise, they may be a lot longer to do. But that's not the case for the perception of the experience by the user. Because if you're talking with someone so that you're both doing your tasks together, the task might take longer, but it might be more correct. Or the task might take longer, but your perception of the time might be less because you're having a good time talking to the person you're doing it with, you're both doing it together and you feel secure. So that's the idea of this kind of social dynamics aspects. Now sometimes, that's not the case, sometimes it can be difficult for software engineers to realise that. A lot of software engineers like to do the thing on their own, it's their view, it's their vision, they do their thing, they don't want to talk to anybody, please, etc. Others, other user groups actually want that collaborative communal feeling. The people you're designing for are often probably not going to be software engineers. If you are designing for people or software engineers, then you should go and look, it's nothing new, I don't think it's in the most, but you should go and look at a resource called Peep Pig. So Peep Pig is the psychology of programming into an interest group. So there are lots of stuff on the psychology of programming and how programmes work as opposed to differences between programmers, software engineers and all the other user groups. So it's called peep pig.org, I think, or something like that. So other things which are intangible might seem kind of a little bit weird to me to be talking about this because it feels a bit like I'm some kind of long-haired hippie sort of thing when I'm talking about the energy that is often found in human interactions, okay? Kind of weird. But I think there is energy in human interactions. There is something, we do our friends, we do living in large groups of people, even if we only have a few friends, we do have them. There is some energy in conversation and talking about it. Problems to having better use those for instance because they are closer to the expectations of person-to-person interactions. Now this is interesting because what happens is that there has been lots of studies just in psychology and cognitive psychology and cognitive science actually about our expectations, we use those expectations of the tools that they use, especially software engineering tools, okay? Not software engineering tools, tools that are created from the software engineering process. So software tools. They expect the software tool, to conform to the social principles that they expect from their everyday life, okay? It's bizarre, I don't know why. But they kind of ultimate this kind of, they humanify with the like of the interface. They make the interface more humane in some way. So people expect the interactions they're having to be with other people in nuts around them to be the same as they're having with the computer. And they get frustrated if they don't get those, okay? I suppose in some ways you could feel like it's how we as humans have a tendency to humanise everything. So cats, dogs, animals, you know, all this kind of stuff. I was looking at something. I was looking at a website last night called cats that look like Hitler, okay? And they're called Hitler, apparently. And so, but they don't look like Hitler, they're cats. How come they look like Hitler? But you know, there we are. More as they're more human, more sort of... So we can empathise with them better, I suppose. I don't know why. The same with the artefacts we have, yeah? We feel more secure and more likely to perform better within groups. This is well known, well known words in the psychology, okay, in sociology. Group work, people like it better. I mean, when you're doing your, oh yeah, you've all done your third year projects and then you've also done your group projects, but did you prefer? How do you tend to do that? Which do you prefer? Not really a question. Did you prefer group projects? Put your hands up, did you prefer group projects? That just prevailed right? You're all software engineers. You just can't do anything with social interaction. Because you didn't prefer to do those particular projects with some useless students? Good point, yes, that's very true. I mean, in the world of work, you don't have to get used to the useless ones. That's true in work. Some of these things are right, because in work you won't get a choice of who you get popular in a project team. I mean, you get some real people. And the same is true for all the people. Well, I'm using that as a sarcastic. And you also get people who are just there for the ride. They're not interested in doing anything too, so there's some reality in that, but yeah, if you've got a choice, would you rather work alone or in a group? Who's that in a group? I'd rather work in a group. Okay? And who'd work alone? I find that in industry, there's much better work in a team. And obviously it's not really something that's working around in that environment. So then you've got people with a 20-year experience, and you're working alongside them, so you can obviously progress a lot quicker. And so you learn to have a lot of just your work in alongside those kind of people. And even if there are a few that bring the team down, generally it averages out a lot because you've got the better people coming with us. Yeah, that's true. I mean also, there is a big stick in industry, because obviously they're not just buying. So if you're not performing, then you're going to get sacros at union. You know? But there is, you know, a lot of people feel better, I mean users perform better in big groups, or in groups. That's why we put together small teams, and that's what's going to happen. Okay. Tell you a bunch of expectations of performance to social and cultural norms. This is something that you'll need to think about as well. Okay, so this is social conventions, isn't it? Remember what we spoke previously about using blue hyperlinks when the web first was created, and the fact that people didn't like to select them in Japan? Because blue is a bad colour. So, you know, those kind of things, those cultural norms are still there for the software engineering process. Okay, so. Does it take social binarys? Now, I really like, has any machines Microsoft Korea tablets? Okay, yeah. So something we've seen in GotCand, because it was good, probably, and Microsoft don't like to do that. So it GotCand because it was really, really a nice tablet. But this, the main point of this was to facilitate social dynamics, okay? So it looks nice. I mean they have working versions, so they weren't just prototypes, they weren't just the graphics. They have working versions, and the versions that were created, they were not just the graphics. So what they could do is easily share with people who they were interacting with. Sometimes on a remote basis, but what really happened is they really liked it when they were in a small team working environment, they had something like a picture or something made cut from the net or cut from somewhere on their pad, and you could just flick it across to the person who you want to flick it to, okay? So I'm not sure how that worked, but generally, the idea was that if you came within proximity, you can then flick across something, you can then communicate between the two machines quite close. Now, of course, they used to do that with Java ring business cards. So in the old days, Java was supposed to be embedded everywhere, and we had these little Java rings. They were called ringers again, to the Java conference. They also had a Java kettle. You know who's in Java? Anyway, so they had Java ring, and in that ring, they coded your business card. So when you went and shook hands with somebody, the two rings would be in close contact and they'd exchange the business cards because she was shaking hands. So therefore it was easy to do. We don't have those names, but anyway, it was about using a better Java to be able to do this. So, all that kind of personal interaction in the way that it's facilitated implicitly is kind of useful. This is what was going on in this social dynamic that they were doing in Microsoft. Now, so wedded were the 100 or so developers at their schoolworks at Pioneer Studios there, in Seattle, to this, that as soon as they decided to camp it, the head honcho who's now got now just resigned and the whole staff just got reintegrated back into Microsoft. So this is now gone. But it was an excellent, I mean, that all of the feedback that they got from the users, all of the feedback that they had from the public was that this was a really nice way of doing things. It doesn't look frightening. It looks, you know, it looks very sort of, well, not too corporate. And also the interaction between other people with those tablets when they come close was really nice. Another kind of social dynamic we'll get onto in a bit more detail. So we've seen these. Anybody who's not familiar with Cotney rhyming slang can see this now. Fast sausage and mash. Fast cash. Okay, that's the Cotney rhyming. So this was obviously put there so that it would gain some sort of, you know, people would go to see it and they'd take their money out to see this kind of Cotney rhyming. It was geo-located to England. So therefore it wasn't just everywhere. And of course this statue machine is one of those that charges you £1.25. So they're trying to get more people to come and take money out of here just to see this interact with this kind of thing. But it's kind of a social dynamic because it says I'm part of Cotney culture or I like Cotney culture in some way. I understand socially what these things mean. Same as people who are maybe red water families. There's some social dynamic going on there as well. So here you've got 30, 30, 40, 30 darun, 30 toth, you know various, various terms, Communist terms, I don't understand. So here it'sовые quality ten 40, 40 datas. Datts, OK. Now, very weird. Anyway, there we are. This is the kind of stuff that you can do to support social dynamic and philology as well. Theology was a concept which was really created maybe 15 years ago and I think a lot of the gamification stuff comes from this kind of phonology stuff. It was created about 10 years ago possibly, maybe a little later. Certainly the phonology term was going back that time. There was an initial obsurge in this phonology book to be published on phonology and then it all went quiet. I think it was difficult to see how it could work practically. It was mainly in the academic domain. Gamification is mainly in the software engineering domain. So one of these is really about coming from a research domain and the other one is from a practice domain. So that's why you probably don't know which one it was from all in particular. So the things I've highlighted with the various aspects that you should be thinking of, probably all that are preparedness with phonology. Personalisation, we've seen this before. So we've seen that personalisation is useful. And here the main thing is that decision making authority for the user. So instead of you getting it so that even though the user might be making an incorrect decision, you think. You might want to let them do it because it gives them more sense of accomplishment and achievement when they complete it correctly. Don't think labels can get massiveness and identity. So these keywords are very difficult to, in any way, think about testively. But this identity thing, especially because it's an identity, are very useful, especially in industrial design domains where we think you can say, I'll keep going back to the iPod, where there's not many people who are curing up for various... Well, there's no place for us, I'm a curing up for hours outside of a Sony station, a Sony shop for their Sony Walkman, but there was the iPods. Because you're buying into this, expressiveness and identity. If you had the white cord that goes up to an iPod, it was completely another one it was creating. Everything was white cords. So therefore you're saying, I'm the iPod user. In Manchester at that time, it wasn't a good idea because everybody maybe got a very expensive MP3 pair. It was a pocket, and there was lots of space of iPods snatching. But the same is true for these... Is it Beats, Dr Dre, Audio, Digvicky things where they've got this red cord and everybody knows it's white and silver and red, the kind of thing. So that shows that you're buying into some kind of identity. So I suppose that the Dr Dre things, because they're quite expensive, they're expensive and they're a bit DJ, so I'm kind of a music DJ. So I've highlighted here, don't think ease of use. I think enjoyment of the experience, and I think that's quite a useful thing to be thinking of. But sensory richness is also something you need to think about, especially when we're moving from design software interfaces to interfaces on devices. Don't hide, don't represent, show. Now, in some ways, this conflict, why does it conflict with stuff that we've been doing in usability? Having some form of hierarchy where you don't display every form of functionality, so in this case, saying don't hide, don't represent, whereas what's talked about when you perform a hierarchy where hide certain functionality is unnecessary, is that what you mean? Yeah, that's very true. Any more? So to represent, we use metaphor a lot in usability. But that's a representation of non-reality. It's not to make a list on a software interface, it's just a metaphor. So it's a representation, so we aren't showing it directly. We're trying to say, this is kind of like what you do in the real world. But it isn't. Narrative, possibilities create one-zone story or original. Why is this important? Why is narrative important? Well, creating one-zone story or original is useful because the ritual binds us together in groups for a start because we have this shared ritual. And the second thing with regard to the narrative is that we know that narrative is a far more effective way of conveying lessons, so the information that is just drywall text, likely text books that you've got. That's just text books, that's just text. So for instance, if you read any of the release, that should read the Bible, it doesn't just say, do this, do this, do this, do this, do this. It gives you a narrative, which in the end says, do this. Or if you don't do this, it's all going to be terrible. That's the kind of thing that we're talking about here. Narrative is conveying mainly, often times. When it does make it, what does narrative normally make things? If you create these kind of stories, these kind of narratives, what is introduced as opposed to just bullet point, do this, do this, do this? Yes. You have a choice to do it or not to do it, that's true. So what does that introduce? It creates like a mental image or something to relate to. Yeah, it creates a mental image. But I'm not here. It makes it into a game. What negatively do you think it introduces ambiguity? So it introduces ambiguity in a narrative because you can then interpret that narrative to mean lots of different things. So therefore, if you've got often times, if you've got ambiguity introduced, then it's not exactly necessarily straightforward. Further, if you've got lots of words surrounding the story, how do I know that you're getting lots from the story, the point, the principle? How do I know that you're understanding that? This thing here is the thing I want you to learn as opposed to just being nice with the story. There's a lot of surrounding text that builds you into that. That's the downside too. Metaphor. Metaphor does not suck. I don't know why this sucks. It's either my typo or theirs. Metaphor does not suck. I've left that blank because I'm not sure. But we see that previously, metaphor, people in lots of people say that metaphor does suck, but it's not very good to use. Other people say that it's a good idea. Don't know. What do you think? Who thinks metaphor's good? Who thinks metaphor's bad? Why do you think it's bad? Because it holds back the experience if we're trying to... having to design something around as a metaphor, pre-existent metaphor, then it will always sell back to me and them. Good, excellent. Yeah, that's very good. That's very true. It could have been my lecture last week. Very simple thing. Very good. Same as familiarity with an interface holds back innovation, because if you're trying to be familiar, how can you be familiar yet still innovative? Communal, social opportunities, and this connectivity is very important. You'll hear this spoken about a lot. Specially this bit here. Co-activity is something that you'll hear outside in programming circles, in user circles, doing things together, this connectivity idea. So, generally, doing things together seems to be a good idea at this point. People want you to be doing things together so that you can do it more efficiently or spoken about, which leads back to, as well as being thumb, it leads back to the point on social interaction and social dynamics. Learning, repetition and progress. So, this is something that we also have to do. We have to do it with most stuff. There needs to be some repetition in what you're doing, but it needs to be a repetition that you're getting. So, in a fun way, we need to work this effect with learning process a bit better than maybe we're doing with regard to the interfaces that you're creating, or who we are creating. Now, phonology. Here's an example of a fun thing that we can see. So, what's fun about this? It's a drop box, but what's fun about it? Yes, grab a Snickers. Grab a Snickers. Okay? There's one time left when you say it's an example. Now, roundly, it could play anything. I suppose it could even be advertising in the evil game, the phonology game that I grew up, that could be advertising Snickers have paid for them. Theoretically. What is that? So, it kind of makes it a bit more fun. Yeah? You can read it. That's the intention anyway. So, cocktail. Sorry, handbrake. Put down the cocktail. There's no reason to tell me that. There's no reason to say that. But it just does it because it said, why am I? Because it's told me that it's going to take a while to rip this over. To convert a file from one to the other. And so it says, go for another cocktail. Why, I don't know. Because it's called handbrake. I don't know. So, handbrake does. But it's just like that. Now, how could it house you if the software engineers could make this better? Very simple. This thing here, how could you make it better? Just with the cocktail, when it's done, it says, do the cocktail. Oh, pull that cocktail down. Before it starts, it says, go and get a cocktail. And then it starts to do its thing. How could you make that better? Make it more fun, maybe, for you to use it. Give it some recipes. So you can give it recipes for the cocktails that would just randomly fill up. Why not? OK. And of course, we've seen the company ATM. I've got a different one here. Band of the bad picture books. Please enter your corporate thing. Ping. Please enter your corporate thing. Ping. Into... I don't write these. I don't make this up. OK. So clarification. Is this thing we've been talking about, really, that we've been getting for? It's been the elephant in the room last hour or a couple of minutes. OK. So there's different kinds of gamification. So we've got this elementary of it. So we've got visual elements, like badges. Cupid phraseology. These things that you might see in gameplay. If you wanted to do something to certain kinds of gameplayers, say, you might use terms or jobs that they're familiar with from certain games you'd expect them to to hide it. So, you know, whatever is the most fashionable game at the moment? What's the most fashionable game at the moment? It's about to be something that's when you get shot, isn't it? I don't know. Don't gameplayers hear it, don't they? What do you play as a computer games? It's great. There's a zinniad of answers. There's a zinniad of answers. There's a zinniad of different answers. OK. Well, what's your answer? OK. So, you can have phraseology that people might have to tell you to. You can also, in the real world, you can have key phraseology that they might to tell you to the part of their work tribe if it's a work, you know, if it's a work group. So, for instance, the people who were into this use experience and were doing, and were working mostly around Pioneer Studios when they, for Microsoft, these guys used to be called when they all got dispersed and they called themselves the tribe, OK, when they went, because they still felt very close to the scriptworks, this kind of innovative scriptworks that Microsoft did, but they were now dispersed. They were like a diaspora, OK, wider place. But they still wanted to think of themselves as one, OK, for some reason. And that's the same student. You can then tie into that kind of terminology, that kind of language. So, you'll be using language in, say, for instance, you use language in situations where you have meetings with people which you might use phrases and jargon, not necessarily because you want to use that phrase but because it ties you to other people in that particular group and, two, it allows you to see who isn't in that group. OK, it's like a shillith. It allows you to see who's not part of that group. So, therefore, I used the term of the day, lamp, to see whether anybody was doing what the hell I was talking about in a manned community. One person did that to certain terms. So, now we know, they know something a bit more than the technical development and they can have a conversation possibly. But that's something that is there in this sort of shared jargon in an interface. So, it was true with the couple of arguments like it's a shared jargon. Then we have bolt-on stuff. So, the bolt-on stuff like this sets a game out of it which is more deeply related to games and gameplay. The easier to add to the pre-existing games so that's why they're called bolt-ons but they can be done really, really badly. OK, you can really go for this kind of or it's a great piece of stuff. Bolt-ons on by the system that the associate president might be on will really be a thing really badly. What things like progression and reward so you're going to get a reward for progress you're going to get so many special points to progress. Leaderboards. Who's in the lead? Who's in the lead with buying stuff with viewing stuff? You can see this, there's some outdoor manufacturers who have leaderboards with buying stuff who's bought the most stuff today on this week. Me? I'm just as bad for this bolt-on crap. No, maybe not the bolt-on crap, maybe I'm ground up. Well, me, I'm the mayor of this and that. Why? Because I go on to this and that and go, ooh, ooh, press four square. Yes, long wait and then I go, yeah. That only took me ten goes to ten times to come here and I beat the guy who was the mayor before me. There's no reason for that, nothing. Apart from my geeky nature I'm not allowed to say I'm the leader I'm the mayor of all that. Four square has added extra functionality so therefore you can get discounts if you're the mayor of various pubs you get 20% discounts, things like that. So, you know, here we've got this progression reward aspect right there. And this is really a bolt-on because they didn't really create it like that they created it so you could just geolocate and then how do we make a business model out of that? That's geolocation. More people who say that they're present in your pub say it at the same time. That's good if they show it show their screen to me and you give them a discount. So it's like a loyalty card in two months. And then getting done in a switch which were planned from the start to be invisible from the main development indivisible from the main development so I looked around for this ground up stuff and I can't see it I can't see anything more than visual elements like a static visual elements I can't see real gameplay just things that visually look like games but the interaction themselves isn't. So if anybody can find something like this let me know because I can't it doesn't look like it's ground up and isn't a game actually it's a game and isn't a game actually it does you know something So here's an example of geolocation you can put your thinggeek.com a great store of course you can put Timmy stickers all over the world so why would you want to do this it just takes you more time I don't know but you can so that's part of this geolocation you enter in a random number for the $100 thing so they're only giving you a gift certificate so you know still no making money out of it really if you get paid so it's kind of price drawn in some cases by you you've got to add a new tool to learn that another one the amazing Timmy gosh I didn't think Timmy is great so if I ask you a question if there are six island who shouldn't it have been and here you make it click who should it be it assumes you know something obviously about that was never actually yes that was never actually and then you decide your fate so why is this why is this gamified give me an example of one of these that isn't gamified it might be a bit of a phonology but why give me an example of one gamification so on Google all how can you just this thing here what do you think this does it looks like a fortune teller it ties into a fortune teller so it's fun it's a little game because you can just let Timmy click what purpose does it have for them all it does is take them look at them it takes you to a random a random product that you can then buy that's all it does so how is it similar to this is gamified say on Google which says I'm feeling lucky it might be just give me whatever it's the same thing it's just simple it doesn't do anything but it just makes it's just like oh it's a game it's a game we'll do the President of Bosnia and then we'll just randomly go to a product they don't lead to the same three different products all the time so they do lead to three different products produce each one that's just random but they're not the same you would have thought that I could build something in to do that so it might still I'm interested in something so that would be it for now and another one so here they have this scrolling 360 degree scroll of different sort of of their different airplanes which you can then zoom in and out of this kind of stuff now this is just like standard visual it looks when you see it it looks visually a bit like it could be the start of a game but it obviously isn't because it's how likely is it that we're going to buy one of these just like this you've got to be second to do something to do I suppose okay so after this break which we're going to have in a minute I want to know your views what do you think about gamification that's the first thing so when you're out so I can talk to you about what you're doing talk to me to run and see what you think about gamification do you think it's from what you've read in your notes from what we've got to from me spouting about it do you think it's a good thing a force for good a force for evil okay alright so back in ten minutes eight minutes past eight minutes past five today okay not just on gamification it's incredible around mid-voices it's flashing it's definitely got stuff yeah it's quite a bit it's something a lot of inflation it's just a bit of a challenge so it can be a lot of fun it can be a lot of fun it can be a lot of fun but it's trying to get used to the point of studying products it should be able to do more than you do at a score yeah it should be a lot of fun but it's a great so you have some questions yeah I don't want to be asked .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ....