CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20

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

Lomas, James Derek, Karac, Mihovil, Gielen, Mathieu·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3474654
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3474654

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. 10.1145/2347504.2347531 · DOI
  2. 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).
  3. Bartle, R. (1996) Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of Online Environments.
  4. 10.1145/3078072.3079719 · DOI
  5. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.
  6. 10.1145/2598510.2598533 · DOI
  7. 10.1145/3064663.3064692 · DOI
  8. Botero, A. (2013). Expanding design space (s): design in communal endeavours. School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Dissertation
  9. 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. 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.006 · DOI
  11. 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).
  12. Dalsgaard, P. (2017). Instruments of inquiry: Understanding the nature and role of tools in design. International Journal of Design, 11(1).
  13. 10.1145/3290605.3300801 · DOI
  14. 10.1504/JDR.2016.079751 · DOI
  15. Desmet, P. M. A., Pohlmeyer, A. E., & Yoon, J. (2017). Design for Happiness Deck.
  16. 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.
  17. 10.2514/3.3182 · DOI
  18. 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.
  19. 10.1145/2207676.2208538 · DOI
  20. 10.1504/IJART.2010.030490 · DOI
  21. 10.1145/1858171.1858189 · DOI
  22. 10.1145/2839462.2856541 · DOI
  23. 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
  24. 10.1145/3434462 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599338 · DOI
  26. Heape, C. (2007). The Design Space: the design process as the construction, exploration and expansion of a conceptual space. Dissertation.
  27. 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.
  28. 10.1145/1518701.1518851 · DOI
  29. 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).
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 10.1145/3275116.3275132 · DOI
  34. 10.16993/dfl.68 · DOI
  35. Lomas, D., Patel, K., Forlizzi, J. L., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Optimizing challenge in an educational game using large-scale design experiments. ACM CHI.
  36. 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
  37. 10.1504/IJART.2013.050688 · DOI
  38. 10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_5 · DOI
  39. 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.
  40. 10.1145/67449.67497 · DOI
  41. 10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_2 · DOI
  42. Macklin, C., & Sharp, J. (2016). Games, Design and Play: A detailed approach to iterative game design. Addison-Wesley Professional.
  43. 10.1145/3059454.3059472 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1016/0142-694X(94)90026-4 · DOI
  45. 10.1007/s00779-004-0295-6 · DOI
  46. 10.1145/1378773.1378786 · DOI
  47. 10.1145/3173574.3173840 · DOI
  48. Onarheim, B., & Biskjaer, M. M. (2013). An Introduction to "Creativity Constraints'. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (ISPIM).
  49. 10.1145/2838739.2838782 · DOI
  50. 10.1145/2556288.2556991 · DOI
  51. 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.
  52. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x · DOI
  53. 10.1145/2838739.2838797 · DOI
  54. Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking.
  55. 10.21606/drs.2018.284 · DOI
  56. 10.1109/HICSS.2000.926895 · DOI
  57. 10.1201/b17723 · DOI
  58. 10.1201/9780080919171 · DOI
  59. Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design studies, 24(2), 111--134.
  60. 10.1109/MS.2011.121 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Schmit, L. A. (1960). Structural design by systematic synthesis. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Electronic Computation, ASCE, Sept., 1960.
  62. 10.1145/1323688.1323689 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 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).
  64. 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.
  65. 10.1177/1534484316641512 · DOI
  66. 10.1214/aoms/1177732144 · DOI
  67. 10.26503/todigra.v3i2.73 · DOI
  68. 10.1017/S0890060406060057 · DOI
  69. 10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_34 · DOI
  70. 10.15187/adr.2016.11.29.4.5 · DOI
  71. 10.1145/1858171.1858228 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 20

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
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2021-10-05
Volume
5
Issue
CHI PLAY
Pages
1-21
ISSN
2573-0142
DOI
10.1145/3474654
Cited by
20
References
3
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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