Keywords

1 Introduction

University classes require concentration and devotion. The lunch/coffee breaks provide opportunities to relax, take time away from studies, and meet students from outside the class. However, in some cases, students spend breaks sitting in the classroom on their phones and not interacting with each other. In some other cases, they sit with each other in common areas, but the full potential of the break is not explored. As Fuchs [2] and Liu et al. [3] state, “we have a society with a ‘high lusory attitude’’’. Thus, the lack of ludic and collaborative opportunities at school can decrease the interest of the student in engaging in activities during their lunch breaks. Fuchs [2] also states that “an essential quality of the digital medium is its ludic potential.” Hence, laptops and more recently, smartphones have become a center point for ludic engagement with their almost endless number of apps. This makes it easy to connect with people from all parts of the world to facilitate individuals’ ludic needs. Thus, in the study presented in this paper, we took a design approach to explore how technology can contribute to creating a ludic experience during lunch breaks among students within the school area. We used Østfold University College (ØUC) in Halden, Norway, as the venue for conducting our study. We used the interaction design process described by Sharp et al. [4] to investigate needs and design an interactive prototype, which we called “Willy’s Pond”. The design was inspired by the elements of ludic design by Gaver et al. [1]. The prototype was then evaluated in a natural setting. Observations and semi-structured interviews were used to capture the users’ experience.

This paper has the following outline. In Sect. 2, we root our study in the literature. In Sect. 3, we present the design process, which is then followed by the Findings from the evaluation of the prototype in Sect. 4. The findings are then briefly discussed, and together with conclusions are presented in Sect. 4.

2 Background

Ludic engagement, playfulness/fun, and enjoyment have been extensively discussed in the literature. In HCI, ludic design or designing for ludic experiences has been initially discussed by Gaver et al. [1] in their classic paper “The Drift Table: Designing For Ludic Engagement”. In the paper, they explored ludic design in a home context and designed a coffee table with a viewing port in the middle that shows photos of a landscape moving in directions according to weight distribution on the table. It offers an experience that can be shared between the people sitting around the table. The design has no other purpose than to engage in a ludic activity. However, according to Gaver et al. [1], “such activities are not a simple matter of entertainment or wasting time. On the contrary, they can be a mechanism for developing new values and goals, for learning new things, and for achieving new understandings”. Designing for the non-utilitarian part of ludic engagement can be just as important as designing for any other utilitarian activity [5]. Gaver et al. [1] assumptions for a design for ludic activities were:

  • To promote curiosity, exploration, and reflection systems should provide resources for people to appropriate, rather than content for consumption.

  • It should not achieve a practical task, as this will distract the user from a more playful engagement.

  • It should maintain openness and ambiguity. The design should avoid a clear narrative so people can find their own meaning.

There are also other approaches to ludic design or designing for ludic experiences. According to Selander [6] in his paper “Designs for learning and ludic engagement,” ludic engagement is associated with learning. According to him, learning and ludic both involve human interest and participation. People interact with each other to collaborate, experience, negotiate, and share their ideas to achieve a specific goal. Therefore, both processes are interlinked with each other.

Moreover, Selander [6] relates the ludic experience to play referring to play, as studied in Caillois [7]. According to Caillois’s, playing is all about competition and struggling to win. He gave four aspects of play in four different forms, such as competition, chance, danger, and role-play. Selander [6] also emphasizes how ludic activities in analogy with play are activities that do not have a specific purpose.

Moreover, in another study, Gadamer [8] relates ludic with fun. He says we play for fun, not for a specific purpose. So, according to him, we play for ourselves and not to perform any specific task.

In this paper, we draw on Gaver et al. [1] design principles for designing for a ludic experience of students’ during lunch breaks. We have investigated how such design can help students socialize and engage in collaborative activities during lunch breaks.

3 Design Process

We adopted the interaction design process by Sharp et al. [4] in order to explore what to design to enhance student’s ludic experience during lunch breaks in schools. They have identified four phases of the interaction design process:

  1. 1.

    Identify needs and requirements - the needs of the studied user groups are investigated and mapped through different methods.

  2. 2.

    (Re) Design - based on the identified needs and requirements, different design alternatives are created and critically evaluated through different methods.

  3. 3.

    Build an interactive system (Prototype) - a representation of one of the design alternatives is created as a proof of concept. There are different categories of prototypes that can be built [9].

  4. 4.

    Evaluate - the prototype is evaluated. The evaluation can be used to research further the user requirements or evaluating the usability of the prototype.

3.1 Identify Needs and Requirements

The following methods were used for data gathering, and the main goal was to understand the aspects and opportunities most of the students were lacking for having ludic experience during their lunch breaks.

Unstructured Interviews.

We conducted unstructured interviews, which are characterized by open questions around an issue that the interviewer wants to discuss with the interviewee [10]. Considering the design approach of our study, we wanted to know the students’ unbiased opinions regarding their experience during lunch breaks.

We conducted interviews on different days at ØUC, with twenty-five randomly chosen students. The students interviewed were initially asked for consent. Two of the researchers took handwritten notes of the answers. The topic discussed was “what students did during lunch breaks at the college and what changes would they need to have a more ludic experience during the lunch breaks”. Zhang and Wildemuth [10] say that unstructured interviews are primarily incorporated into a study through participant observations. Thus, we followed their advice and supplemented our interviews with observations.

Observations.

The observations were conducted at four different places at the university, in the café, library, classroom, and lobby area. Our framework was to look for activities the students do, objects they use or interact with, and feelings among the students. The data was collected by splitting up in two groups and sitting for 20 min at each place and passively observing students during their lunch breaks. We observed for two days for a total of four hours. We asked students for consent prior to observations and observed both students alone and in groups. The most notable things we learned from these observations were that all of the persons sitting alone were occupied with either a mobile or a laptop, and their mood was more sedated. Many of the group observations also had laptops or mobiles present, but they were more interested in interacting with each other than using the devices. The groups that were having lunch in the café and the groups sitting in the lobby area were in a happy and playful mood where they were laughing, chatting, or playing ping-pong.

Results.

The data collected from the interviews and observations, was analyzed with a grounded theory [11] approach and the findings were that most people like to:

  1. 1.

    Spend the lunch break out of the classroom - visiting the café, eat lunch, or sit and chat in the common areas until the next class starts. Moreover, the socializing and spending time with friends involves a few activities and is mostly sedentary with phone on their hands.

  2. 2.

    Students were looking for more opportunities in terms of collaborative engagement in playful activities during lunch breaks.

3.2 Design

The findings from the first phase were evaluated and discussed. The discussion was followed by brainstorming sessions in which we started to ideate a design solution that would satisfy the findings from the first phase. The iterative brainstorming sessions resulted in four different ideas. For each of the ideas, we created possible scenarios [12] and storyboards [13], which helped in further refining the ideas.

Considering the focus on lunch breaks and the observation of students sitting around a table in groups during breaks, we focused on tabletop solutions that could contribute to a ludic experience that would require a collaborative engagement. Designing for a ludic experience was drawn on Gaver et al. [1] principles, and further findings from the literature described in Sect. 2. Finally, we concluded with the idea of an interactive coffee table, as shown in Fig. 1 and described in detail in the next subsection.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The interactive table

Full size image

3.3 Prototype

Our prototype was inspired by the findings in requirements gathering. We designed an Interactive Coffee Table, which we called “Willy’s Pond”.

The prototype is a circular tabletop transformed into a pond for Willy, a fish, to swim around in. Willy swims around by his own will, but the users can interact and socialize with him by touching the screen. Three main functionalities are implemented in the prototype.

  • Expanding and contracting the pond area based on the number of people sitting around the table.

  • Influencing Willy’s movement in the pond by touching the screen.

  • Feeding Willy.

The pond surface has levels, ranging from 1–5, that change according to the number of people at the table (see Fig. 2). When there is no one at the table, the pond is small, and Willy is sad and moves slowly. When more people join the table, the pond area will expand, making Willy happier, and moving faster. In the last level, food for feeding Willy is available, and the user can drag and drop into the pond to feed the fish. Willy will then eat the food and grow in size. If Willy has not been fed for a while, he will become smaller.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

The prototype with Fish, Five levels (1–5), and food for fish

Full size image

To develop the prototype, we used a laser cutter for making a round tabletop shape that had a square in the middle where a computer screen was inserted. Sensors were supposed to be installed on each side of this tabletop to detect people approaching the table as well as speakers for sound feedback. Due to time constraints, we had to connect the screen to a laptop that provided sound, and also, the sensor detection and fish movement were simulated during evaluations on the laptop. For graphics, we used: Javascript, HTML. CSS and GIF animations.

3.4 Evaluation

Inspired by the “Turn in the Wild” movement in HCI [14], we decided to place the prototype in natural settings in order to conduct what in the interaction design process is called evaluation. We positioned the prototype in the cafe and leisure room at ØUC for three days in a row during lunch breaks. Meanwhile, we conducted observations on how people interacted with the prototype and interviewed them through semi-structured interviews afterward to gain better insight regarding their experience. We had four groups (four to five students) and five individual students who engaged with the prototype and consented our observations and our interviews. The evaluation in the natural setting had two aims: 1) look into the user experience and if the prototype was enhancing a ludic experience for the students during lunch breaks, 2) which elements of the design were contributing to having a ludic experience.

Thus, from the observations and interviews, we had written notes, which we analyzed with a qualitative interpretive approach [15]. Regarding users’ experience, we interpreted testers’ behavior and answers from the interviews. Instead, for the design elements enacting a ludic experience, we used as a basis for our interpretative analysis, Gaver et al. assumptions, for a design for ludic activities. Our analysis is limited due to the small number of people participating in the evaluation. Thus, further investigations are planned in the future.

4 Findings

Below we list some of our findings grouped in main categories.

  • Users found the prototype ludic & less task-oriented. Almost all participants in the evaluation found the prototype ludic. They had fun interacting with it and took it as a game, which almost needed no effort. Two of the groups emphasized how much they loved the fish and felt good after playing/interacting with the tabletop. Only one participant found the prototype concept hard to understand.

  • Users were curious to explore the prototype. Apart from one student, all participants described their reactions as of surprise and curiosity. When they first saw the prototype they asked amongst themselves, “What is this? Why does this table look different?” and were inquisitive about checking out the prototype.

  • Openness and ambiguity. The open structure and avoidance of a clear narrative gave users the possibility to explore without a specific meaning and a clear goal to achieve. This ambiguity allowed each of them to find his/her own meaning to the interaction. This is in line with Gadamer [8], who states, as mentioned earlier, “we play for fun, not for a specific purpose”.

  • Users found ludic the need for collaborative engagement. Many students said they would love to sit around this table with other students and have their lunch together as well as making Willy happy. Three students distinctively mentioned that they empathized with Willy after they saw he needed more breathing space and food. They decided to invite other students to join them at the table. In comparison to Gaver et al. [1] “Drift Table”, where the interactions are triggered individually by people putting weight on the table, our prototype has a requirement for collaborative interaction. People need to join forces to enjoy the ludic experience while still having individual elements of interaction.

  • Users wanted more interaction on the table. Even though almost all the students found the current prototype interesting and playful, the general consensus was that in the future they would prefer additional interaction with the table. Some students suggested having more fish on the last level (allow all students at the table to have their personalized fish), while others loved the idea of having more food options as well as different feeding methods (like dragging the food toward the fish).

5 Conclusion

In this paper, we presented the design of a prototype, which can enhance a ludic experience during lunch breaks in school. The prototype consisted of a tabletop, turned into an interactive pond, where a fish swims around, through the usage of a touch-based screen. The prototype was inspired by the students’ needs investigated through interviews and observations and findings for designing for a ludic experience from the literature [3, 7,8,9].

In our evaluation, we found that all the students valued the experience of sitting around the table with their friends and playing with the fish ludic in the sense of being playful and fun. This is in analogy with Selander [6]. Students also highlighted that the non-task oriented approach, the openness, and ambiguity of the prototype triggered their curiosity. Drawing in these elements of ludic design by Gaver et al. [1] contributed to the ludic experience of students during the lunch break. Moreover, an important element of the ludic experience mentioned during our identifying needs and requirements phase of the design process and during evaluations was the need for collaborative engagement of the users (students in our case) in exploring the whole ludic experience. The findings show that the prototype model motivates people to interact with each other by physically sitting together and joining their actions.

This paper offers three main contributions. Firstly, we identified some problems after researching what students lack during their free time in between classes, which we refer to as the lunch/coffee breaks. Secondly, we proposed a new design solution to address the issues identified in the identify needs and requirements phase. Thirdly, we took a research through design approach when evaluating the solution designed. Thus, we used the prototype to provoke students’ reactions and, as Gaver et al. [1] suggests, create new understandings on what can contribute to students’ ludic experience during lunch breaks. We evaluated the user experience with infield testing, qualitative observations, and semi-structured interviews to finally get on the conclusions using a qualitative interpretive approach. In addition to Gaver et al. [1] three characteristics of ludic design, we found out that the feeling of collaboration in the table enhanced the ludic experience. Thus, we can highlight collaborative engagement as a characteristic of the ludic design.

In the future, we want to improve the prototype described in this paper based on the students’ recommendations. Moreover, we want to explore with more design alternatives that can be used to motivate people in other contexts to engage collaboratively in ludic activities.