Keywords

1 Introduction

Heuristic Evaluation is a usability inspection method widely used to evaluate user interfaces to identify usability problems. In this method, the evaluators inspect the interface considering a set of general usability principles (the heuristics) [1] and classify the severity of the violations found, making possible to analyze the feasibility of the problem correction and the selection of those problems that should be corrected with higher priority. This classification is initially performed in an individual stage and, subsequently, collectively among the evaluators [2].

Although Heuristic Evaluation is a widely used method to evaluate an interactive system, there are serious criticisms regarding its validity and reliability [3]. One of these criticisms is the frequent discrepancy between the individual severity ratings, attributed by evaluators to the problems identified [4].

Some solutions have been proposed to support the evaluation process, such as the Collaborative Heuristic Evaluation (CHE) [3], an extension of the Heuristic Evaluation, in which the evaluators act as members of a collaborative group for the execution of the activities of this method. Another initiative is G4H (Game for Heuristic Evaluation) [5], gamification based on the principles of CHE, which aims to increase the engagement and motivation of different evaluators during the consolidation of Heuristic Evaluation results.

In the development and validation of G4H, the authors of gamification [5] considered only the Nielsen’s usability heuristics [6]. Thus, the original G4H proposal does not apply to other sets of heuristics, such as playability heuristics.

In addition to the initial usability heuristics set created by Nielsen for the Heuristic Evaluation method [6], other heuristics sets were proposed, including the enable the evaluation of other user interface characteristics. In this context, several heuristics sets have been proposed in the literature to evaluate the playability of digital games [7,8,9,10,11]. Through the use of playability heuristics, the method becomes known as Playability Heuristic Evaluation.

The main goal of this article is to present G4H-PLAY (Game for PLAYability Heuristic Evaluation), an adaptation of the G4H to allow the use of playability heuristics based on the set of playability heuristics proposed by Barcelos et al. [10]. In this way, it is intended to provide the motivation and engagement benefits of G4H as well as G4H-PLAY. In the future, empirical studies should be conducted to validate and ensure that the benefits provided by G4H can also be achieved with G4H-PLAY.

This paper is organized as follows: Sects. 2, 3 and 4 present, respectively, the Heuristic Evaluation method, the concepts of gamification and the G4H proposal. Section 5 describes the related works, which deal with games developed for the improvement of methods of the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) area, as well as the similarities and differences with the present paper. Section 6 presents the methodology steps used for the G4H-PLAY development; and finally, Sect. 7 discusses the conclusions obtained with this research.

2 Heuristic Evaluation

Heuristic Evaluation is “a usability inspection method designed to evaluate user interfaces with the objective of identifying usability problems” [1, 12]. In turn, usability is a quality of use criterion of user interfaces that can be defined as a set of factors that qualify the use of an interactive system by certain individuals. These factors are ease of learning, easy to remember, efficiency, low occurrence of errors and user satisfaction [13].

In the Heuristic Evaluation, the evaluators inspect a previously chosen interface considering usage scenarios and a set of usability principles, also known as usability heuristics [1], to identify problems that violate heuristics. They still need to classify the severity of the problems encountered, to prioritize those that are more serious for the user interaction with the interactive system [2]. Table 1 lists an initial set of 10 usability heuristics proposed by Nielsen [6] to be used in the Heuristic Evaluation method.

Table 1. Nielsen usability heuristics [6]
Full size table

This initial set of heuristics can be expanded to include new guidelines involving the possibility of evaluating other quality of use criteria, not only the usability [2]. In this context, several authors established heuristics to evaluate the playability of digital games [7,8,9,10,11]. Some scientific research [10, 11, 14] apply the Heuristic Evaluation method with playability heuristics that are known as Playability Heuristic Evaluation. There are several definitions for playability in the literature, where each can be considered depending on the purpose of the research being conducted [15]. In this paper, we consider the definition of Sánchez, Zea, and Gutiérrez [16], which defines playability as “the degree to which specific users can achieve certain goals with effectiveness, efficiency and especially satisfaction and fun in a playable context of use.”

The classification of severity for each problem found is the result of the combination of three factors [17]:

  • Frequency: Does the problem occur constantly or rarely?

  • Impact: If the problem occurs, will be easy or difficult for users to overcome it?

  • Persistence: Is the problem timely and can be overcome by users, or will it bother users multiple times throughout the interaction?

To facilitate the understanding and comparison of the severity rating performed by the evaluators, Nielsen [12, 17] recommends the use of the following scale:

  • 0 - is not a violation: the problem found cannot be categorized as a violation;

  • 1 - cosmetic problem: does not need to be corrected, except if there is time available in the project schedule;

  • 2 - minor problem: the correction of this problem must have a low priority;

  • 3 - major problem: correction of this problem is important, but it has not a higher priority;

  • 4 - catastrophic problem: this type of problem can block the user from accomplishing their tasks and reaching their goals and the product cannot be delivered without correcting this problem.

It is also recommended that three to five evaluators participate in the Heuristic Evaluation so that a considerable number of problems are identified in the user interface [1]. This method involves the execution of five activities [2]:

  1. 1.

    Preparation: the evaluators select the screens or prototypes of the system to be evaluated and choose the set of heuristics to use.

  2. 2.

    Data collection: each evaluator individually inspects the selected screens and each of its elements, analyzing whether the heuristics were obeyed or violated, since each violated heuristic is potential usability (or playability) problem;

  3. 3.

    Interpretation of data: each evaluator registers the following information for each identified problem: heuristics violated, place of occurrence (which screens and interface elements are involved), the severity of the problem, the justification for the existence of the problem and recommendations for a solution, when possible;

  4. 4.

    Consolidation of results: Each evaluator shares his /her list of problems identified with the other evaluators so that everyone has an overview of the problems in the interface. Then the evaluators can assign a new degree of severity to each problem encountered. Next, the evaluators should agree on the final classification of the severity of each problem and also select the problems to be reported in the consolidated report;

  5. 5.

    Reporting of results: the evaluators prepare a report containing the following items: objectives and scope of the evaluation, a brief description of the Heuristic Assessment, set of heuristics used; quantity and profile of the evaluators, and the list of problems encountered.

Although Heuristic Evaluation is widely used to evaluate user interfaces, there are serious criticisms related to its validity and reliability [3]. Among them, we highlight the frequent discrepancy between the individual severity ratings, attributed by evaluators to the problems found in the interface [4]. In this context, CHE (Collaborative Heuristic Evaluation) was proposed, as an extension of the standard Heuristic Evaluation method, in which the evaluators work collaboratively as a group for the execution of all Heuristic Evaluation activities, sharing the challenges and possible frustrations and boredom which may occur in the evaluation process [3].

This paper uses a set of playability heuristics proposed in the literature to elaborate the G4H-PLAY, an adaptation of G4H gamification that only supported Nielsen’s usability heuristics [6]. The original G4H proposal and G4H-PLAY are based on the CHE principles.

3 Gamification

Gamification is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” [18]. This technique can be applied to “engage people, motivate actions, promote learning and solve problems” [19].

According to Tondello [20], game design elements are components used in game designs to enhance the player experience when interacting with the game. In this way, gamification has an interest in elements such as challenges, badges, levels, points, achievements, avatars (playful representations for certain character profiles) and ranking scores (it allows the player to compare his performance with the other players), rather than focusing on elements such as graphics and audios. Tondello [19] further states that the main purpose of gamification goes beyond the entertaining or fun of the players. For example, gamification can be applied in the areas of business, marketing, education, health, and politics.

According to Werbach and Hunter [21], to develop an appropriate gamification project it is crucial to define how players will be motivated. Motivation is classified into two types: extrinsic and intrinsic. In extrinsic motivation, people perform certain activities because they feel they have to do it, that is, external factors cause motivation. For example, a person may study hard for a test because he knows that the result of that test may impede his graduation. While in intrinsic motivation, people perform specific activities because they want to do it, that is, motivation is self-interest, there are no rewards or other relationships with external factors. For example, a person wants to succeed in a professional career to feel competent and accomplished.

In a gamification project, understanding the difference between these types of motivation is important because the designer can create mechanisms to motivate users for different purposes. Also, it should consider the different profiles of players in the project, and also the factors that can discourage these users [21].

This article intends to develop G4H-PLAY, an adaptation of G4H gamification to allow the use of playability heuristics. The G4H was designed to improve the execution of the Heuristic Evaluation method, specifically in the consolidation of results task. Thus, it is important to know the gamification concepts to understand the proposal of G4H, and consequently, of G4H-PLAY.

4 Game for Heuristic Evaluation (G4H)

Game for Heuristic Evaluation (G4H) is gamification developed in the format of a card game whose main goal is to engage and motivate users in the execution of Heuristic Evaluation method, specifically in the results consolidation task based on the CHE principles (see Sect. 2). In this gamification, the potential users are experts in HCI, and there is also the possibility of use by non-specialists and end users [5].

To reach the established goal, the G4H considers as extrinsic motivation the recognition that a player can obtain from other players for being a good evaluator, and as intrinsic motivation, it is considered the execution of the evaluation and the identification of the precisely violated heuristics. The G4H authors also point out that gamification was developed considering Nielsen’s usability heuristics [5].

In G4H, each usability problem found represents a round of the game, in which players need to choose one or more heuristic violations, including the possibility that the problem does not violate any heuristics, and still need to rate the severity grade of the problem. Different evaluators are considered to assign different values of severity because they generally do not have the same level of experience in HCI and the use of heuristics [5].

The game presents negotiation phases, where each player discusses to try to convince others about the violated heuristics and the severity grade chosen for each problem. After this step occurs, players can choose to maintain or to change their selection of heuristic violations and must choose the new severity to be assigned to each problem, considering the justifications presented by the players [5].

At the end of the round, the player who has chosen the correct severity level (selected by most players) is the winner of the round and receives one (1) or two (2) points (see Sect. 4.2). In any round, a player may return three (3) points to buy a new negotiation phase (also called renegotiation), in which the new choices of the players replace previous ones. This mechanics increases the player’s chance to convince others with their arguments and win the round, and it represents the competitive character of the gamification, which is especially important to increase the analysis on a certain usability problem, allowing an evaluation end with higher quality. Finally, the player who accumulated the most points during the rounds is the winner of the game [5].

The G4H cards are available in the original proposal of this gamification [5]. The following subsections present the details of G4H.

4.1 Game Setup

For the game start correctly, the following items must be available [5]:

  • Heuristic cards: each player must receive a set of 11 cards, where the first ten (10) represent Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics, and the last one represents a problem that does not violate any heuristics (referred to grade 0 of the Nielsen’s severity scale);

  • Severity cards: each player must receive a set of 4 cards. They represent the remaining grades of the Nielsen’s severity scale (1–4) used to classify each identified problem;

  • Point cards: represent the reward that gamification provides players by assessing the severity of problems correctly;

  • Tasks: the actions to be executed, previously and individually, by each player during the inspection of the chosen system, to identify the existing usability problems. The game needs a list of problems discovered during the execution of the tasks, but the evaluation itself is outside the scope of the G4H;

  • Access to the system selected for evaluation;

  • Heuristics guide: provides a brief description of each Nielsen’s usability heuristics, which can be used by players to recall the meaning of each heuristic;

  • List of usability problems previously identified by each player;

  • Participation of at least three players.

4.2 Activity Cycle Rules

The gamification proposed by G4H presents a simple activity cycle, which involves the execution of ten steps [5]. Figure 1 presents these steps.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

G4H activity cycle based on [5]

Full size image

1st - Presentation of the problem:

the first player selects a problem from his list of problems, which he has worked out previously. The same problems identified by more than one player should not be reevaluated in a new round unless they represent violations of different heuristics. In this step, the round player describes the current problem for the others. Then, all players discuss the problem by making comments and questions to the player who found the problem in the system. Players can also perform the task again on the system to demonstrate the occurrence of the problem.

2nd - Initial selection of violated heuristics:

each player chooses one or more heuristic cards to indicate which heuristics he believes were violated by the round problem. Initially, these cards must be face down so as not to influence the evaluation of the other players. When all players complete their choices, they must turn over their cards at the same time.

3rd - Discussion on the selection of heuristics:

all players, one at a time, should argue over how and why they chose certain heuristic cards, which represent violations.

4th - Final selection of violated heuristics:

all players vote again on heuristic violations that they consider correct for the round problem. The next steps should considerer the heuristic(s) chosen by most players results in the final selection. An exception occurs when most players decide that the problem does not violate any heuristics, so the round ends in this step and the game returns to step 1.

5th - Initial severity rating:

each player chooses a severity card and again keeps it face down to prevent other players’ opinions from being influenced until all players complete their selection. Players show their cards at the same time. If the players have agreed to the same classification, the game goes on to distribute the points (step 8). However, if there is any divergence in severity rating, the game proceeds to the negotiation phase (step 6). It is important to remember the choice of each player in this step because it will be used to define the winner of the round and the distribution of points in case of divergence between them.

6th - Negotiation on the severity rating:

all players, one at a time, should explain the reasons that led them to choose a certain degree of severity. Players can debate and ask questions about the severity rating. G4H does not specify a fixed amount of time for this negotiation phase but recommends that each player speak at least once. When players agree that enough information already exists to conduct a new classification, the game continues to the next step.

7th - New severity rating:

all players re-select a severity card, which may be the same as chosen in step 5 or a new card representing a change of player’s opinion. As in the previous steps, the selected card must face down until all players choose their respective cards. The severity card selected by most players represents the severity grade chosen for the current problem. The next step is to define the winner(s) of the round.

8th - Distribution of points:

the game rewards all players when there is a consensus in the initial severity rating (step 5), where each player receives 1 point, or also individually rewards players who have guessed the final severity grade (step 7) in your first chance of evaluation (step 5). In this second case, the player who selected the final severity grade (step 7) similar to the one chosen in step 5, receives 2 points. For example, consider a round where 3 players participated: A, B, and C. If in step 5, player A chose the “major” severity, and players B and C chose the “minor” severity grade, and after negotiation (step 7) most players chose “major” severity, only player A earns 2 points. However, if after negotiation the severity grade selected by most players was “minor”, only players B and C receive 2 points. The last possibility happens when the final selection of most players is a different severity rating (not mentioned earlier), for instance, “catastrophic”. In this case, the player who has selected the severity closest to the final classification gains 1 point. Considering the previous example, player A who chose “major” severity in step 5 would gain 1 point.

9th - Purchase of new negotiations:

players can still buy a new trading chance (also called renegotiation), which is interesting when the round decision is balanced, and the player wishes to have a new chance to win the round. For this, this player returns 3 points, which are lost regardless of the results of the new negotiation. The players must also return the points obtained in the last step and must execute steps 6, 7 and 8 again. The G4H allows only one renegotiation purchase per round.

10th - New round:

if the player of the round has no further problems to be analyzed in his list of problems, the game proceeds with the player on the left until all problems previously encountered by all the evaluators are discussed and consolidated.

To evaluate the usage of the first version of G4H with potential users, a preliminary study was carried out with the participation of five undergraduate students, who had basic knowledge in evaluating interfaces and in the use of Nielsen heuristics. Participants used G4H to consolidate the results of evaluating a web system, which allows them to compare prices and sell products. During this experiment, it was possible to observe that the participants performed the Heuristic Evaluation with greater satisfaction from the use of G4H [5].

This article uses the G4H proposal to develop G4H-PLAY, an adaptation of this gamification to allow the use of playability heuristics, given that the original G4H proposal considers only the Nielsen’s usability heuristics [6].

5 Related Work

The related works present games focused on the concepts and methods of the IHC area, they are UsabiliCity, MACteaching, and UsabilityGame.

UsabiliCity [22] is a serious educational game, developed for the Web platform, to support the teaching and learning of Nielsen’s usability heuristics (see Table 1), developed for the Heuristic Evaluation method. This article discusses a game developed for the same method. However, this work proposes a new educational game, while the present article seeks to evolve an existing game: G4H, whose proposal aims to improve the execution of Heuristic Evaluation and is not to teach the method. The main goal of the present paper is to adapt the G4H to allow the use of a set of playability heuristics, while the related work concentrates only on Nielsen Usability Heuristics.

MACteaching [23] is an educational game, developed for the Android platform, with the purpose of supporting the teaching of the Communication Evaluation Method (CEM), a method of the HCI area created to evaluate the communicability of interactive systems [24]. This article also addresses the topic of games aimed at improving HCI evaluation methods. However, this work proposes a new educational game to complement the teaching of CEM, while the present paper seeks to propose a G4H adaptation, as explained before.

The UsabilityGame [25] is an educational simulation game, developed for the Web platform, with the purpose of supporting usability teaching, considering the Usability Engineering Life Cycle [26], which involves the activities of requirements analysis, prototyping, and execution of the Heuristic Evaluation. UsabilityGame also discusses a game developed for the Heuristic Evaluation method. It also proposes a new educational game with the goal of supporting not only the teaching of this method but also the activities of requirements analysis and prototyping, including all stages of the usability lifecycle proposed by Mayhew [26], while the present paper has no focus on teaching the method and uses playability heuristics.

6 Defining G4H-PLAY

This section presents the methodology steps used to develop the G4H-PLAY (Game for PLAYability Heuristic Evaluation).

6.1 Choice of Playability Heuristics

This step consists in selecting a set of playability heuristics proposed in the literature, which will be used to develop the adaptation of G4H, named G4H-PLAY. The goal is to allow to achieve the G4H benefits with the Playability Heuristic Evaluation, and, since that there are many playability heuristics sets defined in the literature, it is necessary to select a playability heuristic set. The heuristics set chosen means only as an application case of this methodology, which has the potential to be replicated with other playability heuristics sets.

In this paper, the playability heuristics set selected was established by Barcelos et al. [10], considering that the heuristics proposed by the authors are refinements of the heuristics sets established by several authors, they are: Desurvire and Wiberg [8], Federoff [7], and Pinelli, Wong, and Stach [9]. The authors also managed to reduce the number of proposed heuristics to 18, since an extensive number of playability heuristics generates difficulty in memorizing for the evaluators, as it was observed in Desurvire, Caplan and Toth work [27] that established 43 heuristics.

Table 2 presents the 18 heuristics defined by Barcelos et al. [10]. According to the authors, the first 8 heuristics are traditional usability principles, which were contextualized for the digital game domain, and the remaining 10 heuristics are specific principles of playability.

Table 2. Barcelos playability heuristics [10]
Full size table

6.2 Extracting Information About Heuristics

This step consists of collecting information related to the specification of the playability heuristics set chosen in step 6.1 and its use in the Playability Heuristic Evaluation.

From this information it will be possible to identify the necessary modifications to adapt this G4H gamification to the playability heuristics set chosen, thus elaborating the G4H-PLAY.

As previously mentioned, the playability heuristics set chosen to be gamified was proposed by Barcelos et al. [10], and through this work, the information regarding the proposed heuristics was collected. Table 3 presents the information extracted from Barcelos et al. [10] to identify the necessary modifications for G4H.

Table 3. Heuristics data extracting information
Full size table

The selected heuristics set contains 18 heuristics, each of which was specified with an identifier (ID) and a definition (see Table 2), representing the specification model. Heuristics were not classified into categories. For each problem identified in the experiment, the severity classification was performed using a six-point scale (0 to 5). It doesn’t apply the Nielsen’s severity scale [12, 17], and it doesn’t provide the meaning of each value of the scale used. It only provides the range of the scale used, which ranges from 0 to 5, and this G4H-PLAY will consider this severity scale. Finally, the participants of the experiment were divided into pairs and the analysis involved the results obtained by three or more pairs, and the analysis of the results of the Playability Heuristic Evaluation involved the participation of at least six evaluators.

6.3 Analysis of the G4H Adequacy

This step consists in analyzing how each information collected in step 6.2 may lead to the adequacy of existing rules and the creation of new G4H cards. For example, each playability heuristics need to be represented into a heuristic card in the gamification. Other information as categories and heuristic definition will also be placed in the card. Each severity level turns into a severity card. Each player needs to receive a set of cards, and all these cards need to be developed for G4H-PLAY. Performing this step is important in identifying what modifications need to be made in G4H to adapt that gamification to the set of chosen gameplay heuristics.

G4H had a fixed number of heuristic cards (11), one for each Nielsen usability heuristic [6], and one last card to represent that the problem that does not violate any heuristics. In the set of chosen playability heuristics, 18 heuristics were established. Thus, for the elaboration of G4H-PLAY, 18 new heuristic cards must be developed (one card for each playability heuristic).

Originally, the G4H heuristic cards presented only name and icon to represent a heuristic. However, the chosen playability heuristics were specified with ID and definition. Thus, it is necessary to adapt the heuristic cards to present this data.

In the G4H proposal, the heuristic guide can be used by players to recall the heuristics definitions during the gamification rounds. However, there is no need to develop a heuristic guide for G4H-PLAY, given that the full information on each heuristic should already be contained in the new heuristic cards.

The playability heuristics set chosen do not classify their heuristics into categories, not causing changes in items or G4H rules. In this case, it was not necessary to modify the heuristic cards template because the original proposal considers Nielsen’s usability heuristics [6], which are also not categorized.

Originally, G4H severity cards consider the Nielsen’s severity scale [12, 17]. However, in the experiment performed in [10] to validate the playability heuristics set chosen, a different scale (ranging from 0 to 5) was used to classify the severity. Thus, G4H severity cards cannot be used in G4H-PLAY, including also the heuristic card that represents the 0 value (i.e., is not a violation) of the scale suggested by Nielsen. Thus, to develop the G4H-PLAY it is necessary to elaborate six (6) new severity cards (one card for each severity scale value used in the experiment). Changing the severity scale also leads to adjustments in the G4H activity cycle rules, considering that one or more steps in this cycle need to be rewritten to exemplify the use of the new severity scale.

Finally, the participation of six evaluators in the Playability Heuristic Evaluation does not cause adjustments in G4H, since the original proposal of this gamification considers the minimum of three players, but does not define the maximum number of users.

The adaptations necessary to adapt the G4H to the chosen playability heuristics set (G4H-PLAY) are summarized below:

  • Adapt the heuristic cards that must present their ID and definition for each playability heuristic. 18 new heuristic cards must be drawn up;

  • Adapt the severity cards to represent the six-point severity scale (0 to 5). Six (6) new severity cards must be drawn up;

  • Adequate activity cycle rules that should exemplify the use of the six-point severity scale.

6.4 G4H-PLAY Proposal

This step consists in developing solutions for the adaptations identified in step 6.3, which represent the adaptation of G4H to allow the use of the playability heuristics proposed by Barcelos et al. [10]. This adaptation was named G4H-PLAY (Game for PLAYability Heuristic Evaluation), which is presented below.

Cards

Figure 2 presents the 6 severity cards developed from the six-point scale (0 to 5) used by the playability heuristics set chosen. These cards show only the number representing each level of the scale because Barcelos et al. work [10] does not provide the meaning of each number.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

G4H-PLAY severity cards

Full size image

Point cards were redesigned to adopt the same pattern of heuristic cards and severity cards. Figure 3 shows the new scoring cards.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

G4H-PLAY scoring cards

Full size image

Figure 4 presents the 18 heuristic cards developed from the playability heuristics set chosen for adaptation [10]. Each card represents a heuristic with its ID and corresponding definition.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

G4H-PLAY heuristics cards.

Full size image

Activity Cycle Rules

Considering the original activity cycle proposed by G4H (see Sect. 4.2), the only step that needs to be adapted is step eight (8) which deals with the distribution of points, given that only in this step is exemplified the use of severity scale. All other steps can be applied in G4H-PLAY, as originally proposed by G4H.

Step 8 is now written as follows (changes in bold format): the game rewards all players when there is consensus in the initial severity rating (step 5), where each player receives 1 point or individually rewards players who guessed the final severity score (step 7) in their first chance of evaluation (step 5). In this second case, the player who selected the final grade (step 7), the degree of severity similar to the one chosen in step 5, receives 2 points. For example, consider a round where 3 players participated: A, B, and C. If in step 5, player A chose severity grade 3, and players B and C chose severity grade 2, and after negotiation (step 7) most players chose severity grade 3, only player A earns 2 points. However, if after negotiation the severity grade selected by most players was 2, only players B and C receive 2 points. The last possibility happens when the final selection of most players is a different severity rating (not mentioned previously), for instance, severity grade 5. In this case, the player who selected the severity closest to the final classification gains 1 point. Considering the previous example, player A who chose the severity grade 3 in step 5 would gain 1 point.

7 Conclusion

This paper presents G4H-PLAY (Game for PLAYability Heuristic Evaluation), an adaptation of G4H gamification to allow the use of playability heuristics. For this, the playability heuristics set proposed by Barcelos et al. [10] was chosen. From these heuristics were extracted information related to the specification of each one and their use in the Playability Heuristic Evaluation. This information was used to verify what modifications would be required to adapt the G4H to these heuristics set, thus generating G4H-PLAY.

The main contribution of this paper is the G4H-PLAY proposal. It is expected that this new gamification can provide the motivational and engaging benefits of G4H to the different evaluators involved in the Playability Heuristic Evaluation, which considers the heuristics proposed by Barcelos et al. [10]. It is worth noting that the methodology presented in this work has the potential to be applied with other playability heuristics sets, not only with the Barcelos et al. heuristics [10]. As previously mentioned, these heuristics set has the potential to summarize different playability heuristic sets and that is the main reason for its selection. It is important to notice that G4H-PLAY depends on the Barcelos et al. set [10] and need further adaptation to be used with other playability heuristic sets.

However, G4H-PLAY needs to be validated through empirical studies to ensure that the benefits of G4H can also be achieved by G4H-PLAY. Another expected future work is the development of a generic model that allows the adaptation of G4H gamification to any playability heuristics set. G4H-PLAY can be used by researchers, students, and HCI practitioners to make G4H adaptations more easily.