The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Design Space Cards: Using a Card Deck to Navigate the Design Space of Interactive Play
Abstract
The potential space of game designs is astronomically large. This paper shows how game design theories can be translated into a simple, tangible card deck that can assist in the exploration of new game designs within a broader "design space." By translating elements of game design theory into a physical card deck, we enable users to randomly sample a design space in order to synthesize new game design variations for a new play platform ("Lumies"). In a series of iterative design and testing rounds with various user groups, the deck has been optimized to merge relevant game theory elements into a concise card deck with limited categories and clear descriptions. In a small, controlled experiment involving groups of design students, we compare the effects of brainstorming with the card deck or the "Directed Brainstorming" method. We show that the deck does not increase ideation speed but is preferred by participants. We further show that our target audience, children, were able to use the card deck to develop dozens of new game ideas. We conclude that design space cards are a promising way to help adults and children to generate new game ideas by making it easier to explore the game design space.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“helping them understand the design space -the space of possible ideas and solutions to a task and problem has been found to play an essential role in creative processes [23, 34, 45, 57].”
From Luminate: Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creation (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
In the citing paper
“Design spaces have commonly been represented with Cartesian spaces where possible variations reside within the dimensions of a design, and variations reflect different values on those dimensions [7, 32, 45, 57].”
From Luminate: Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creation (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
In the citing paper
“They found that these design space cards can help a range of audiences from children and design novices to experts - to effectively create new game designs [45].”
From Luminate: Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creation (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mapping the Landscape of Creativity Support Tools in HCI
Frich, J., MacDonald Vermeulen, L., Remy, C., Biskjaer, M. M., & Dalsgaard, P. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300619 · Cited by 410
Player Types: A Meta-synthesis
Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014) · Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association · doi:10.26503/todigra.v1i2.13 · Cited by 355
A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices
Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Robertson, G. G. (1991) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/123078.128726 · Cited by 337 · cited 1×
“In 1991, Stuart Card et al famously showed the utility of a formal design space by systematically considering the morphological diversity of the design space of computer input devices [11].”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 71
- 10.1145/2347504.2347531 · DOI
- Athavale, S., & Mohan, A. (2018). Understanding Game Ideation Through the Lens of Creativity Model. In DS 89: Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2018), University of Bath, Bath, UK (pp. 176--182).
- Bartle, R. (1996) Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of Online Environments.
- 10.1145/3078072.3079719 · DOI
- Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.
- 10.1145/2598510.2598533 · DOI
- 10.1145/3064663.3064692 · DOI
- Botero, A. (2013). Expanding design space (s): design in communal endeavours. School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Dissertation
- Briggs, R. O., & Mittleman, D. D. (1997). Directed brainstorming: A GSS technique for collaborative crisis response. In Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems.
- 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.006 · DOI
- Compton, K., Melcer, E., & Mateas, M. (2017,). Generominos: Ideation cards for interactive generativity. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (Vol. 13, No. 1).
- Dalsgaard, P. (2017). Instruments of inquiry: Understanding the nature and role of tools in design. International Journal of Design, 11(1).
- 10.1145/3290605.3300801 · DOI
- 10.1504/JDR.2016.079751 · DOI
- Desmet, P. M. A., Pohlmeyer, A. E., & Yoon, J. (2017). Design for Happiness Deck.
- Dibitonto, M., Tazzi, F., Leszczynska, K., & Medaglia, C. M. (2017). The IoT design deck: A tool for the co- design of connected products. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 217--227). Springer, Cham.
- 10.2514/3.3182 · DOI
- Gallagher, S., & Park, S. H. (2002). Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: a historical analysis of the US home video game market. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 49(1), 67- 82.
- 10.1145/2207676.2208538 · DOI
- 10.1504/IJART.2010.030490 · DOI
- 10.1145/1858171.1858189 · DOI
- 10.1145/2839462.2856541 · DOI
- Grip, T. (2017). The SSM Framework of Game Design. Blog post on gamasutra.com (https://www.gamasutra.com/ blogs/ThomasGrip/20170524/298648/The_SSM_Fram ework_ of_Game_Design.php
- 10.1145/3434462 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599338 · DOI
- Heape, C. (2007). The Design Space: the design process as the construction, exploration and expansion of a conceptual space. Dissertation.
- Hewett, T., Czerwinski, M., Terry, M., Nunamaker, J., Candy, L., Kules, B., & Sylvan, E. (2005). Creativity support tool evaluation methods and metrics. Creativity Support Tools, 10--24.
- 10.1145/1518701.1518851 · DOI
- Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI(Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 1722).
- Isaksen, A., Gopstein, D., Togelius, J., & Nealen, A. (2015). Discovering unique game variants. In Computational Creativity and Games Workshop at the 2015 International Conference on Computational Creativity.
- Karac, M. (2018) "Power of the Cubes." Masters Thesis. Delft University of Technology, Industrial Design Engineering. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:7423644b-9fe2--46c7--91d1-c6e034ea01be
- Kiefer, P., Matyas, S., & Schlieder, C. (2006). Systematically Exploring the Design Space of Location-based Games. Pervasive 2006 Workshop Proceedings, Poster Presented at PerGames2006, (January 2006), 183--190.
- 10.1145/3275116.3275132 · DOI
- 10.16993/dfl.68 · DOI
- Lomas, D., Patel, K., Forlizzi, J. L., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Optimizing challenge in an educational game using large-scale design experiments. ACM CHI.
- Lomas J. D. Forlizzi J. Poonwala N. Patel N. Shodhan S. Patel K. & Brunskill E. (2016 ). Interface design optimization as a multi-armed bandit problem. ACM CHI. · DOI
- 10.1504/IJART.2013.050688 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_5 · DOI
- MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Design space analysis: Bridging from theory to practice via design rationale. Proceedings of Esprit, 91, 720--730.
- 10.1145/67449.67497 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_2 · DOI
- Macklin, C., & Sharp, J. (2016). Games, Design and Play: A detailed approach to iterative game design. Addison-Wesley Professional.
- 10.1145/3059454.3059472 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0142-694X(94)90026-4 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00779-004-0295-6 · DOI
- 10.1145/1378773.1378786 · DOI
- 10.1145/3173574.3173840 · DOI
- Onarheim, B., & Biskjaer, M. M. (2013). An Introduction to "Creativity Constraints'. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (ISPIM).
- 10.1145/2838739.2838782 · DOI
- 10.1145/2556288.2556991 · DOI
- Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist, 39(2), 83--96.
- 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x · DOI
- 10.1145/2838739.2838797 · DOI
- Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking.
- 10.21606/drs.2018.284 · DOI
- 10.1109/HICSS.2000.926895 · DOI
- 10.1201/b17723 · DOI
- 10.1201/9780080919171 · DOI
- Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design studies, 24(2), 111--134.
- 10.1109/MS.2011.121 · DOI · Paper page
- Schmit, L. A. (1960). Structural design by systematic synthesis. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Electronic Computation, ASCE, Sept., 1960.
- 10.1145/1323688.1323689 · DOI · Paper page
- Sommervold, M., & van der Velden, M. (2015). TRANSITION CARDS: DESIGNING A METHOD WITH AND FOR YOUNG PATIENTS. IADIS International Journal on Computer Science & Information Systems, 10(2).
- van Amstel, F. M., Hartmann, T., van der Voort, M. C., & Dewulf, G. P. (2016). The social production of design space. Design studies, 46, 199--225.
- 10.1177/1534484316641512 · DOI
- 10.1214/aoms/1177732144 · DOI
- 10.26503/todigra.v3i2.73 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0890060406060057 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_34 · DOI
- 10.15187/adr.2016.11.29.4.5 · DOI
- 10.1145/1858171.1858228 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Suh, S., Chen, M., Min, B., Li, T. J.-J., & Xia, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642400 · Cited by 148
Metadata
- Authors
- Lomas, J. D., Karac, M., & Gielen, M.
- Affiliations
- Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Published
- 2021-10-05
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- CHI PLAY
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 2573-0142
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
