Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysing fun as a candidate software requirement

  • Published:
Personal Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Analysis of concepts related to “fun” is used to suggest the main areas where fun may be important to software design. The issue is important as many analyses and design methods fail to allow for designs aimed at user enjoyment, even though computer games are now a major industry. The main cases seem to be either where enjoyment is the chief aim (requirement) of the design, or where learning is important. The phenomena of “flow” experiences are also important here, and raise the issue of designing for desirable cognitive modes of interaction, as well as for desired end results. However the relationship of learning and fun, while clearly important, is complicated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dowell J, Long J. Towards a conception for an engineering discipline of human factors. Ergonomics 1989; 32(11): 1513–1535

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dowell J, Long J. A conception of the Cognitive Engineering design problem. Ergonomics 1998; 41(2): 126–139

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rieber LP, Smith L, Noah D. The value of serious play. Educational Technology 1998; 38(6); 29–37 http:// itech 1.coe.uga.edu/faculty/lprieber/valueofplay.html (visited 13 March 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Malone TW. What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. 1980 Technical Reparc CIS-7 Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

  5. Malone TW, Lepper MR. Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In: Snow RE, Farr JJ. (eds) Aptitude learning and instruction: III Conative and affective process analysis. Erlbaum, London, 1987: 223–253

    Google Scholar 

  6. Neal L. Implications of computer games for system design. In: Diaper D, Gilmore D, Cockton G, Shackel B (eds) Human Computer Interaction: INTERACT '90. North-Holland, Oxford, 1990; 93–99

    Google Scholar 

  7. Csikszentmihalyi M, Csikszentmihalyi IS. (eds). Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  8. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New York, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jones MG. Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments. ITForum (email list:invited paper posted 7 December 1998) and [WWW document] URL: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.html

  10. Hedden C. A guided exploration model of problem-solving discovery learning Ph.D. Dissetation; University of Washington, 1998. Also http://learningtech.com/diss.html (abstract visited 2 May 1999)

  11. Hedden C. Re: ITFORUM paper #30 (Jones). Email message to ITForum, 6 December 1998. Also http:// itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/30-5.html

  12. Hutchins EL, Hollan JD, Norman DA. Direct manipulation interfaces. In: Norman DA, Draper SW (eds) User centered system design. Erlbaum, London, 1986 87–124

    Google Scholar 

  13. Langer EJ. The power of mindful learning. Addison-Wesley, NY 1997

    Google Scholar 

  14. Watzlawick P (ed). The invented reality: how do we know what we believe we know? Contributions to constructivism. W. W. Norton, New York, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marton F, Hounsell D, Entwistle N, (eds.) The experience of learning. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  16. Boud D, Feletti G. The challenge of problem based learning. Kogan Page Ltd, London, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rieber LP. Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games Educational Technology Research and Development 1996; 44(2): 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  18. Draper SW. Practical problems and proposed solutions in designing action-centered documentation. In: Carroll JM (ed) Minimalism beyond the Numberg funnel. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998; 349–374

    Google Scholar 

  19. Draper SW, Oatley K. Action centered manuals or minimalist instruction? Alternative theories for Carroll's minimal manuals. In: Holt PO, Williams N (eds.) Computers and writing: state of the art. Intellect Books, Oxford and Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1992, 222–243

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, Glasgow, UK

    Stephen W. Draper

Authors
  1. Stephen W. Draper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen W. Draper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Draper, S.W. Analysing fun as a candidate software requirement. Personal Technologies 3, 117–122 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01305336

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01305336

Keywords

Search

Navigation