Computers and Fun 2001 Expectations and Endurability – Measuring Fun Janet C Read Stuart J MacFarlane Chris Casey University of Central Lancashire, Preston

Computers and Fun 2001

Expectations and Endurability – Measuring Fun

Janet C ReadStuart J MacFarlaneChris CaseyUniversity of Central Lancashire, Preston


Where is this coming from?

• PhD study of novel interfaces with children• Evaluation of interfaces for children• Usability studies

– Efficiency– Effectiveness– Satisfaction


Satisfaction Measuring with children

• Previous work• Read, J. C., & MacFarlane, S. J. (2000). Measuring

Fun. Computers and Fun 3, York, England.• Read, J. C., MacFarlane, S. J., & Casey, C. (2001).

Measuring the Usability of Text Input Methods for Children. HCI2001, Lille.

• Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K., J. (1997). Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 1997(5), 9-14.


Theories of Satisfaction

• Henry, J. W., & Stone, R. W. (1995). The Impacts of End-User Gender, Education, Performance, and System Use on Computer Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy.

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory


Previous findings

• ‘Likert’ scales, Rep Grid, Observations• It’s all brilliant!!!!!!!!!• Younger children cannot easily differentiate

between constructs• Observation is intrusive


Expectancy Theory

• Does expectation give any clues about how good something is?– High expectation + okay = let down– Low expectation + okay = made up– High expectation + good = brilliant


Desires and Expectations• Chin & Lee (2000)

Prior Expectations

Post-hoc Perceptions

Prior Desires

Discrepancy with Expectations

Discrepancy with Desires


Endurability

What’s too painful to remember, we simply choose to forget…the laughter..we will remember……………‘The way we were’

‘Pollyanna Principle’ Matlin and Stang, (1978)


Method• 45 (41) Children aged 8 – 10 were going on a

school trip

Phase 1 Expectations

Phase 2 Post-hoc perceptions

Phase 3 Recollections

Phase 4 Ordering by rep grid

Phase 5 Desire to repeat event


Phase 1 – Phase 2 (Likert scales)

• Questionnaires• Comprising 3 questions and a smiley face

‘Likert’ scale.


Results from Phase 1 and Phase 2

• 59% Brilliant all the way – Brilliant before, brilliant afterwards76% Got what they expected20% changed their score by 1 pointOnly 4% children changed their score by 2 points

96% got almost what they expected!


Phase 1 and Phase 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Before scores

Aft

er s

core

s


Phase 3 - Recollections

• Children were asked to recall the activities they had done.

• At the same time, they were asked to recall what they had liked best – this had been asked previously – just after the event


Results from Phase 3

• 81% recalled the thing that they had identified as liking best directly after the event (3 weeks previously)

• 63% said that the thing they liked the best was the same as the thing identified as liking the best directly after the event


Phase 4

• Repertory Grid constructed by the children, two constructs– Most fun– Most interesting

• A list of activities was provided for the children to place on the grids – thus introducing some constraints


Comments

• Children filled in in two ways– Scan and place from top down– Filling from top and bottom, – Some of the top bottom fillers gave up in the middle– Some of the top downers gave up before the end– All were clear about the differences in the constructs


Results from Phase 4

• The most fun / most interesting components were compared with the statements about what they liked best.

• 33% of the responses were the same as had been previously recorded.

• These results had limited value due to the fact that 43% had noted something as most fun which was not offered on the rep grid list.


Phase 5 – Desire to do-it-all-again

• If we had the chance to do it all again..tell me would we…could we?.. ‘The Way we Were’

• Children were given the same list of activities as for the rep grid, and were asked to score them for ‘doing it again’ – three choices, yes, maybe, no


Results from phase 5

• This worked quite well, children were able to make decisions and seemed to understand what was going on with the metric


Doing it again vs. order in rep grid

-1012345678910

-2 0 2 4 6 8


Observations

• Children got what they expected• Children remembered the thing they liked best• The desire to do-it–all-again matched the order

of perceived fun for individual activities


A sensible suite of fun measures

• Observations (when not intrusive)• Do-it-all-again Grid (easier for the children to

complete than the rep grid, and may be better suited for younger children)

• Likert before and after


Can it be that it was all so simple?

• Desire / Expectation model relies on abstract thought, for children aspiration relates to the sum of the best parts of their previous experiences

• Children remember less bad things than adults – due to a lack of depressive states!

• Children remember good experiences


Or has time re-written every line?

• Bewitchment• Kindness• Desire to please


Future work

• Age 10 / 11 – start of abstract thought..• Less attractive event – less bewitchment• Apply to a pen interface usability trial


Scattered pictures…..

Of the smiles we

left behind!!!!

Smiles we gave to one another…

[email protected]

Documents

Computers and Fun 2001 Expectations and Endurability – Measuring Fun Janet C Read Stuart J MacFarlane Chris Casey University of Central Lancashire, Preston