A Design Space For MeaningfulGamification

Stuart HallifaxUniv LyonUniversity Jean Moulin Lyon 3LIRIS, UMR520569622, Villeurbanne, Francestuart.hallifax@liris.cnrs.fr

Jean-Charles MartyUniv LyonUniversité de SavoieLIRIS, UMR520569622, Villeurbanne, Francejean-charles.marty@liris.cnrs.fr

Audrey SernaUniv LyonINSA LyonLIRIS, UMR520569622, Villeurbanne, Franceaudrey.serna@liris.cnrs.fr

Elise LavouéUniv LyonUniversité Jean Moulin Lyon 3LIRIS, UMR520569622, Villeurbanne, Franceelise.lavoue@liris.cnrs.fr

Paste the appropriate copyright statement here. ACM now supports three differentcopyright statements:

• ACM copyright: ACM holds the copyright on the work. This is the historicalapproach.

• License: The author(s) retain copyright, but ACM receives an exclusivepublication license.

• Open Access: The author(s) wish to pay for the work to be open access. Theadditional fee must be paid to ACM.

This text field is large enough to hold the appropriate release statement assuming it issingle spaced in a sans-serif 7 point font.Every submission will be assigned their own unique DOI string to be included here.

AbstractGamification design is a complex process. Existing gamefuldesign methods generally focus on high level motivationalconsiderations, and provide little to no support for lower-level design decisions, such as visual and operational as-pects. In order to provide designers with the tools to createmeaningful and motivating game elements, we propose adesign space that encapsulates lower-level design deci-sions during the design process. We also propose a set ofdesign cards and a board that aim to support the designprocess for collaborative design sessions.

Author KeywordsGamification; Meaningful Design; User Motivation; DesignSpace; Design Cards

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.m [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI)]:Miscellaneous; H.5.2 [User Interfaces]: User-Centered de-sign; K.8.0 [Personal Computing]: Games

IntroductionOver the past few years, gamification (the use of game el-ements in non game contexts [4]) is used more and moreto provide enjoyable and engaging experiences. Specificdomains such as education [2], or health [17] rely moreespecially on structural gamification, integrating game el-

ements that do not alter the content of the activity [8]. Tobe effective, the motivational affordances of such gamifiedsystems should be designed with a deep understanding ofhuman motivation [3, 22]. Recent studies emphasise theimportance of meaningfulness in the design process [14,3, 16]. Game elements should make sense to users, creat-ing explicit connections to the given activity, and supportingfeelings of competence, autonomy and relatedness, identi-fied as essential in Self-Determination Theory [19, 22, 16].On the contrary, non-meaningful elements may be ignoredor worst may demotivate users [16, 3].

Design space

Why?Behaviour ChangeAutonomyBehaviour EncouragementBehaviour DiscouragementPerformance

What?GranularityActivityActionOperation

How? (Content)Dynamic + MechanicRewards

PointsCollectablesUseful items

GoalsSelf defined GoalsExternally defined Goals

TimeTimersSchedules

Self RepresentationSkills

Social InteractionTeamsTradingDiscussion

ProgressTask ProgressionCompared to others

Table 1: The proposed designspace for game elements (firstpart)

Even if gameful design methods have emerged recentlyfrom practitioners and researchers [3, 22], affording engag-ing experiences in non-game interactive systems remainschallenging. Many existing design frameworks provide onlyhigh-level guidelines and considerations to assist designersand no guidance on how to identify and fulfil user motiva-tions [3]. Lower-level design decisions, such as interfacedesign patterns [4], are poorly supported although they canalso play an important role in improving user experience.Marache-Francisco and Brangier [14] showed for instancethat visual aspects of the gamified system play an importantrole in the perception of gamification.

In practice, during design sessions designers, developersand other stakeholders, who may not have the same levelof expertise regarding gamification, have to select relevantgame elements and decide how to implement them for aconcrete situation. They lack guidance on choosing amonga huge number of elements considering their impact on mo-tivational affordances. As a result, they are often confinedto use only a subset of predefined well-known elements aspointed out by Tondello et al. [23], reducing creativity in thedesign process.

This work aims to overcome these limitations by guiding

stakeholders during collaborative design sessions to con-sider lower-level decisions in the design process. We pro-pose to extend the emerging concept of meaningful gamifi-cation to operational and visual aspects, bringing togetherHCI practices and gamification. We present a design spacefor game elements specification that encapsulates nine de-sign dimensions to consider in the design process. We alsopresent a set of cards designed to facilitate the collaborativeexploration of the design space during design workshopsand a board used to structure the design process.

Gamification design approachesDifferent approaches have emerged from practitioners andresearchers, either from HCI or gamification, to support andstructure the gamification design process. Readers can re-view state-of-the-art papers for a presentation of existinggamification design processes [3, 22, 15]. Global designprocesses generally offer guidelines to consider the contextand suggest the following steps: define the main objective,understand the user motivation, identify the game mechan-ics and analyse the effect of gamification [24, 9]. Deterdingintroduced more operational aspects with the concept of de-sign lenses and skill atoms [3]. However, these approachesoffer poor guidance regarding customisation and implemen-tation of elements for a given context. To choose amongelements, various lists of game mechanics are proposed[23]. However the high number of elements in these listsmake their usage difficult in practical design sessions.

To guide design sessions, Marache-Francisco and Brangier[14] provide designers with a toolbox for gamification thatsupport two design steps: the context analysis and the iter-ative conception of the gamification experience. Designerscan rely on a conception grid and decision-trees consistingof questions which guide element selection. Other worksprovide design cards, traditionally used in design practice to

foster creativity insuring a common vocabulary and sharedunderstanding among participants [12]. These cards oftencorrespond to design steps (such as [5]) or at fairly high ab-stract level (such as AddingPlay 1). At a lower level, cardscan help to define the calculation rules (victory conditioncard for instance) but not the visual aspects.

Design space for meaningful game elementsDesign spaces are traditionally used in HCI for identifyingalternatives and structuring decisions in the design phase[21]. We present a design space that encapsulates ninedimensions to consider regarding operational and visualaspects of elements for meaningful structural gamification(see table 1 for a summary). These dimensions serve toanswer 5 questions that designers have to consider [16]:Why is the game element used? What is the focus of thegame element? How does the game element work (con-tent)? Who is concerned by the game element? and How isthe game element represented (presentation)?

Design space (Cont.)

Who?Actor

UserGroupCommunity

RangeUserGroupCommunity

How? (Presentation)Visibility

BeforeDuringAfterAlways

StyleLiteral formRelated to the domain

FormatRelativeAbsolute

PrecisionPreciseFuzzy

Table 1: The proposed designspace for game elements (secondpart)

Behaviour change (Why?)Gamified systems aim to engage users in changing theirbehaviour or achieving their goals. This dimension helpsdesigners reflect upon the design rationale behind thegame element. We identified from the related works fourbehaviour changes according to designers’ goal: Autonomy[2], Behaviour Encouragement, Behaviour Discouragement[10], and Performance [24].

Granularity (What?)According to the Activity Theory [11], an activity is per-formed by a subject in response to a specific need or mo-tive in order to achieve an objective. By inciting designers

1http://gamification.playgen.com/addingplay-for-me/

to reflect on the granularity level, we lead them to questionif the game element should address the main motive of theusers (linked to the activity; i.e. running), their sub-goals(linked to actions; i.e. a 5km run) or conditions to realise theactions (linked to operations; i.e. stretching before runningor breathing exercises).

Dynamic and Mechanic (How - Content?)For meaningful gamification, designers have to decidewhich game dynamic and mechanic the game elementshould implement. Based on the theoretical frameworksMDA [7] and DMC [24] and on well-established game dy-namics and mechanics, we list 6 commonly used game dy-namics (Rewards, Goals, Time, Self-representation, SocialInteraction, Progress), and classify some mechanics withineach dynamic. As we focus only on structural gamification,we exclude elements such as Storytelling or Quests thatare directly linked to the content.

Actor and Range (Who?)These two dimensions refer to the actor who uses the ele-ment (actor ) and who can see the game element (range):an individual user, a group of users, or a community. Thesedesign choices are crucial as they impact the type of regu-lation intended [6]. Individual users can self-regulate theiractivity individually or by comparison with others to achievepersonal goals. Game elements shared by a group of userscan help them co-regulate their own activities according totheir own personal goals but also support shared regulationthat requires interdependency and the complete coopera-tion of participants toward a common goal.

Visibility (How - Presentation?)Schön [20] assumed that reflection can occur both duringthe activity being performed (reflection-in-action) and afterthe activity, e.g. when mentally reconsidering it (reflection-on-action). The timing in which the game element is shown

to the user can have an impact on the reflection process.We add a third value "before" since we can also incite usersto establish goals and plan strategies.

Style (How - Presentation?)Visual aspects of the gamified system play an importantrole in the perception of gamification affording an appeal-ing and immersive experience [13]. The Style dimensionhelps designers decide whether the game element shouldhave a simple literal form (e.g. a basic progress bar) or onemore related to the domain (e.g. a heart that fills up whenyou go to the gym to promote healthy living). Using domain-dependant metaphors can favour explicit connections withthe given activity as recommended by Nicholson [16]. How-ever, the choice depends on users’ intrinsic motivation forthe domain and an independent style can reduce the risk ofuser’ amotivation.

Figure 1: The "visibility" card.

Figure 2: The four secondaryschool teachers interacting with thedesign cards and board during theworkshop.

Format (How - Presentation?)Prensky pointed out [18] that having a clear end state (i.e. a"win point") can increase performance. However, for someusers "learning stops when goals are achieved" [2]. There-fore we suggest to consider presenting the game element ina relative (e.g. a score that shows four points out of a pos-sible ten) or absolute format (e.g. a score that only showsfour points) depending on the motivational context (users’profile or type of activity).

Precision (How - Presentation?)Designers have also to consider the precision of informa-tion presented in the game element. For some users, givingprecise feedback on the activity performance can be mo-tivating [1]. However for less competitive users, showingexact information can be demotivating [17, 23]. Thus wesuggest to consider two possible values: precise (e.g. aleaderboard where the actor is shown to be 6th out of 14users) and fuzzy (e.g. a leaderboard where actor is shown

as in the "Top Half" of users).

Tools to explore the design spaceThe design space presented above allows a systematicconsideration of possible choices when designing gameelements. This task may remain complex, especially if thedifferent stakeholders involved in collaborative design ses-sions do not have the same expertise in gamification. Tosupport the design process and to guide designers in thedesign space exploration, we created a set of design cards.Each card represents a particular dimension and containsthe possible values, as well as examples, or explanations ofthe choices and possible impacts on users’ motivation (forinstance figure 1 shows the Visibility card).

The cards are designed to be used with a board structuringthe different steps to perform during the definition of a gameelement. In addition to the properties defined by the de-sign space, the board supports high-level decisions such asusers and context considerations of the given activity (alsoidentified in [5, 14]), and lower-levels specifications such asvisualisation (element mock-ups) and operational rules. Wedecided to integrate these aspects only on the board sincethey are closely linked to the domain to gamify and wouldprobably have too many forms or values to be representedby specific cards. These domain-dependant elements arethus instantiated during design sessions for each contextand game element.

Testing the design toolsTo test the design space and its exploration with cards andboard, we conducted a design session in an educationalcontext. We held a workshop with four secondary schoolteachers, two teaching engineers, and a game design ex-pert working on a project of gamified mathematics exer-cises (see figure 2). The teachers knew each other and had

previously worked together to create maths exercises. Theworkshop lasted four hours. After a quick introduction ofthe materials, roughly 50 minutes were dedicated to contextspecification: determining the users’ profiles and review-ing the exercises previously created to define actions andoperations within the activity. The rest of the session wasdedicated to the specification of game elements, in totalseven game elements were designed.

We observed that participants took ownership of the designmaterials, sharing common ground on the gamification pro-cess and favouring good communication. As the workshopprogressed, the participants were able to converge on de-sign agreements faster. Discussions content aimed both atconsidering the impacts on students’ motivation and fulfill-ing the different stakeholders’ interests. Teachers and gamedesigners succeeded in making decisions regarding oper-ational and visual aspects of each game element, so thatall of the information required to start the elements develop-ment was provided. Regarding creativity, we observed thatparticipants were able to reuse well-known game elementssuch as points or badges, but also to design unique gameelements (see figure 3 for an example).

Figure 3: An example of one of theboards produced during theworkshop. This game element hasbeen designed to encouragestudents’ perseverance. Itimplements the task progressionmechanic, and is only visible to theuser. Instead of a simple progressbar, the participants decided to optfor a more "metaphorical" design.They decided on a tree that growswith each question answered, witha different branch for eachexercise.

B.C. Encourage a behaviour

GranularityActivity (Tree)Action (Branch)

D-M Task ProgressionActor UserRange User

VisibilityDuring (Branch)Always (Tree)

Style Literal formFormat Absolute

Precision Fuzzy

Table 2: The values chosen by theworkshop participants for eachdesign dimension

Further workshops should certainly be held in order to im-prove the material, and to think upon the integration within alarger gamification process, for example incorporating ques-tions from Deterding’s design lenses [3] or decision treesfrom [14].

ConclusionThis work aims to extend the concept of meaningful gamifi-cation to operational and visual aspects of game elements.To help designers in these complex considerations, we pro-pose a design space that can be used for a vast variety ofcontexts (education, health, sustainability, etc.). The de-

sign space is accompanied by a set of cards and a boardto facilitate its collaborative exploration during the designprocess. We were able to test our tools during a workshopheld with different stakeholders where we gathered valuablefeedback for their improvement in the future.

REFERENCES1. Yigal Attali and Meirav Arieli-Attali. 2015. Gamification

in assessment: Do points affect test performance?Computers & Education 83 (April 2015), 57–63.

2. James Banfield and Brad Wilkerson. 2014. Increasingstudent intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy throughgamification pedagogy. Contemporary Issues inEducation Research (Online) 7, 4 (2014), 291.

3. Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The lens of intrinsic skillatoms: A method for gameful design.Human–Computer Interaction 30, 3-4 (2015), 294–335.

4. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, andLennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements togamefulness: defining gamification. In MindTrek. ACM,9–15.

5. Lauren S. Ferro, Steffen P. Walz, and Stefan Greuter.2014. Gamicards-an alternative method forpaper-prototyping the design of gamified systems. InInternational Conference on Entertainment Computing.Springer, 11–18.

6. Allyson Fiona Hadwin, Sanna Järvelä, and MarielMiller. 2011. Self-regulated, co-regulated, and sociallyshared regulation of learning. Handbook ofself-regulation of learning and performance 30 (2011),65–84.

7. R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek. A formalapproach to game design and game research. In

Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on Challenges inGame AI, Vol. 4.

8. Karl M. Kapp. 2013. The Gamification of Learning andInstruction Fieldbook: Ideas into Practice. John Wiley &Sons.

9. Janaki Kumar. 2013. Gamification at work: Designingengaging business software. In InternationalConference of Design, User Experience, and Usability.Springer, 528–537.

10. Tuomas Lehto and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2011.Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smokinginterventions: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of medical Internet research 13, 3 (2011), e46.

11. Aleksei Nikolaevich Leontiev. 1978. Activity,consciousness, and personality. (1978).

12. Andrés Lucero, Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, andJacob Buur. 2016. Designing with Cards. InCollaboration in Creative Design. Springer, 75–95.

13. Cathie Marache-Francisco and Eric Brangier. 2013a.Perception of gamification: Between graphical designand persuasive design. In International Conference ofDesign, User Experience, and Usability. Springer,558–567.

14. Cathie Marache-Francisco and Eric Brangier. 2013b.Process of Gamification. From The Consideration ofGamification To Its Practical Implementation. (Oct.2013).

15. Alberto Mora, Daniel Riera, Carina González, and JoanArnedo-Moreno. 2017. Gamification: a systematicreview of design frameworks. Journal of Computing inHigher Education (2017), 1–33.

16. Scott Nicholson. 2012. A user-centered theoreticalframework for meaningful gamification. Games+Learning+ Society 8, 1 (2012), 223–230.

17. Rita Orji, Lennart E. Nacke, and Chrysanne DiMarco.2017. Towards personality-driven persuasive healthgames and gamified systems. In Proceedings ofSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors ComputingSystem.

18. M Prensky. 2005. Computer games and learning:digital game-based learning’in Raessens, J. andGoldstein, J.(Eds.): Handbook of Computer GamesStudies. (2005).

19. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci. 2000. Self-determinationtheory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, socialdevelopment, and well-being. The AmericanPsychologist 55, 1 (Jan. 2000), 68–78.

20. Donald A Schön. 1987. Educating the reflectivepractitioner: Toward a new design for teaching andlearning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

21. Mary Shaw. 2012. The role of design spaces. IEEEsoftware 29, 1 (2012), 46–50.

22. Gustavo F. Tondello, Dennis L. Kappen, Elisa D.Mekler, Marim Ganaba, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2016.Heuristic Evaluation for Gameful Design. In CHIPLAY’16 Extended Abstracts. ACM, 315–323.

23. Gustavo F. Tondello, Alberto Mora, and Lennart E.Nacke. 2017. Elements of Gameful Design Emergingfrom User Preferences. In CHI PLAY’17, ACM.

24. Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter. 2012. For the win:How game thinking can revolutionize your business.Wharton Digital Press.