Tipos de Aprendizaje

Endeavors like ‗Project Masiluleke‘, which attempts to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa by merging mobile technology, and PCM (Please Call Me) messages in particular, with healthcare information, counseling and referrals to local testing clinics (for a detailed description of the project see Pop! Tech, 2009).Thus, by scaling the model even further, designers can create social impact by embedding powerful social norms into digital interaction systems.

We thus see similarities with gamification both on theoretical and practical level. Most rhetorical aspects of the current expression of gamification address human behavior; the prime gamification argument is that games shape (playing) behavior at such extent, that their design can be harnessed to influence consumptive (Zichermann & Linder, 2010), working (Reeves &

Read, 2009)and social behavior at large (McGonigal, 2011). At the theoretical level, we most often see the above argument being grounded in the theories of ‗Flow‟ (Csíkszentmihályi M. , 1991) and ‗Operand Conditioning‘ (Ferster & Skinner, 1957) (in that games challenge us and leverage our primal response patterns; for more see next chapter). However, more recently we have also been witnessing a trend in gamification applications to put more emphasis on the conventions of social exchanges (i.e. in gifting, boasting, sharing etc.; again for a more thorough analysis see next chapter). As such, we view gamification as part of this upcoming movement across interaction design in the sense of common rhetorics and aspirations.

2.3.4 The Play of Design

In the previous part, we saw how a rather new trend in interaction design is attempting to broaden the scope of design by introducing models that are focusing on user behavior, not as reactions to interface use, but as a process of awareness, beliefs, values and decisions.

However, there is one particular aspect of interaction design that is very hard to ignore when it comes to (re)contextualizing and (re)addressing the scopes and mediums of the design process: play. Play has a rather long tradition within interaction design and indeed has always been used as a path for exploring new boundaries.

Chapter:2. Inquiry: Gamification Now?

4 3

As many interaction design practitioners and scholars have pointed out, when play enters the design ―equation‖ new possibilities open up both for the design process and the end product.

As Löwgren et al. point out:

―From the early days of role playing and "mocking it up" in participatory design (Ehn and Sjögren 1991) and up until today there has been a thread of playful participation that cuts across the distinction between design and use‖ (Löwgren, Binder, & Malborg, Playing in reality, 2009, p. 7)

And indeed, as play enters the design process as a method, it unavoidably mitigates into the end product itself. Design in general and interaction design in particular have been characterized by their openness to creativity and experimentation; values that can only be manifested in loosely governed labor relations. Thus, activities such as role-playing (see chapter 23: Buxton, 2007) and toy-playing (see chapter 24: Buxton, 2007) are now regarded as parts of the basic toolset for every interaction designer.

The premise of play for both design process and end product is the reduced level of control.

The traditional design thought demands a firm grip on controlling the design process which in turn will result into tighter products on which the user can exert high levels of control. However when play is introduced in the design process this rigidness is confuted; the designer is ―giving up‖ some of the control over the process for a more explorative and serendipitous approach.

Similarly, when play is then mitigated to the end product, the user is deprived of full control in order to facilitate its playful use; this way, new meanings and understandings of the product can be appropriated and developed further.

Of course such an approach does not always guarantee innovative or good design. But when methodological and perceptual boundaries have to be pushed, play is a good strategy. As we have already discussed (2.2.3), play can take the role of a transformative catalyst (transformative play) which can alter the rigid structures that bound it and provide new meanings. As such, this discourse is viewing both designer and user as playful creatures:

―characterized not just by [their] thinking or achievements, but by playfulness: curiosity, love of diversion, explorations, inventions and wonder.‖ (Gaver W. W., Designing for Homo Ludens, 2002)

Chapter:2. Inquiry: Gamification Now?

4 4

‗Ludic Design‘, as it has been termed by Bill Gaver, dismisses all traditional interaction design models when it comes to designing leisure technology for a more open-ended approach that is focused on play. For Gaver, play is the antipodal of work; like Huzinga, Gaver sees in play the qualities that can ―free‖ individuals from the toil of work and the confines of result-oriented activities. Thus in order to eliminate competitiveness, Gaver proposes an approach on play with four characteristics:

1. It is situational in the sense that it always depends on circumstances.

2. Affords playfulness instead of competition; by allowing the user to express her curiosity and experimentation instead of confining her with rules and goals.

3. It takes (mostly) physical form but is also very often highly conceptual.

4. It is unpremeditated, lacking formal structure; by raising questions instead of providing any answers.

The examples of this approach are most often didactic rather than practical; thought-provoking home objects like ‗The Pillow‘ by Anthony Dunne (Dunne, 2008; Dunne & Gaver, 1997; see Figure 10), which is an inflatable pillow with a light block that emits light patterns based on ambient electromagnetic radiation. The Pillow is primarily an aesthetic object but it can be used to challenge the culture of wireless communications and provide the user with a discreet voyeuristic experience over the invisible radio space (Dunne, 2008). A similar example is the

‗Drift Table‘ (Gaver, et al., 2004; see Figure 11), a small coffee table with a circular view port on top, through which a slowly scrolling aerial photography of the British countryside can be seen, controlled by the weight of objects on the table (Gaver W. W., Designing for Homo Ludens, 2002).

Chapter:2. Inquiry: Gamification Now?

4 5

Figure 10. The Pillow, by Tony Dunne.

These artifacts operate against the ―models of normality, usually referred to when new functional possibilities are being developed‖ (Dunne, 2008), being intentionally ambiguous by overstating or understating their meaning. This way, their users must speculate their use instead of planning it, giving them the space to appropriate new meanings. But they also target a broader notion of pleasure; instead of rewarding their users with quantifiable feedback, like persuasive designs do, they attempt to:

―intrigue and delight at all levels of design, from the aesthetics of form and interaction, to functionality, to conceptual implications at psychological, social and cultural levels.‖

(Gaver W. W., 2002)

Chapter:2. Inquiry: Gamification Now?

4 6

Figure 11. The Drift Table, by Bill Gaver.

Thus, ludic design is an attempt to bring discovery, reflection and consequently impact not only for the user but for the designer and her methods as well. It requires new understandings of both user‘s needs and methods to address them. To achieve these methods, Gaver et al.

propose a mindset for designing for ludic interaction based on four directions:

1. Support social engagement in ludic activities. Ludic design should aim at eliciting social interaction and exchange.

2. Allow the ludic to be interleaved with everyday utilitarian activities. Ludic activity can be spontaneous and unpremeditated; as such, ludic design should afford for ludic activity to emerge within the whole spectrum of everyday activities.

3. Don‘t expect ludic designs to leave everyday activities untouched. Ludic designs take both space and time, thus their spatial and temporal attributes will affect the lives of their users beyond a conceptual level.

4. Don‘t seek to meet users‘ immediate desires. Ludic design works against instrumentality and as such should not try to address existing user needs; even when such needs emerge through ludic activities, ludic design should abstain from actualizing them.

We thus see in ludic design the call for a radically different design attitude, instead of moving from learning to implementing, we often see the inverse; implementing a design and then learning from how users appropriate it. An attitude that we see more and more influencing all branches of design; like the urban planning project ‗Re-imagining Chinatown: An Interactive Planning Process‘ (Rojas, 2009) that takes the ludic activity of structuring landscapes with toys (LEGO bricks) into a shared vision for city planning. Visitors of the exhibition participate in a shared ludic activity, shaping a toy scale model of a neighborhood which will then help the urban planner understand how people perceive and envision their community.

Indeed, it might be that most ludic designs nowadays might not be addressing leisure technology, but the principle of looking critically at the traditional standpoints of interaction

Chapter:2. Inquiry: Gamification Now?

4 7

design, work, efficiency and design research, has influenced a whole wide spectrum of interaction design theorists and practitioners. For example, Sengers et al. see ludic design as a challenge for technological design at large:

―In the context of HCI, ludic design explores the limits of technology design practice – what it is we may design for, what methods we may use – by proposing a specific set of values that contrast sharply with those currently at the center of technical practice:

functionality, efficiency, optimality, task focus.‖ (Sengers, Boehner, David, & Kayne, 2005, p. 52)

In that context we see both parallel and crossover lines between ludic design and gamification.

First of all, is the obvious element of play that both share; it might be that the current expression of gamification is primarily steered towards games rather than play, but as we have already argued, it would be nonsensical to discuss games without addressing the role of play in them. As Salen and Zimmerman argue:

―Within PLAY, we explore games as systems of experience and pleasure as systems of meaning and narrative play; and as systems or simulation and social play.‖

(Zimmerman & Salen, 2004, p. 302)

It is this explorative quality of play that could also be a component of a wider gamification paradigm; as we have already argued, gamification requires both new interpretations of design and new practices. As such, both play as a design component and ludic design as an approach, are necessarily parts of a gamification discussion (a discussion that we address more thoroughly in the next chapter).