| piilota yksityiskohdat 24. marraskuuta (2 päivää sitten) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We are sharing globally.
Stanford students on on Thanksgiving Break this week!
Comments are a mix from various TTeam members.
It will probably read like a committee report ;-)
Please share with the global TTeam.
Checklist:
CEP: Experimented with gesture based control. Biggest learning was that buttons are the preferred mode of input because of speed. While gestures might be more natural, gamers wouldn’t sacrifice that for speed.
CFP: Wanted to study if increasing the number of actions per finger - and engaging more fingers would improve game performance. Also, if haptic feedback and button types can enhance the user experience. The key insights were that more buttons do help, but buttons need to be located in context - eg. jump and crouch buttons should be in the same physical space, probably triggered by the same finger. Haptic feedback is merely a bonus feature - not something gamers are really looking for in controllers
Recommendations: Try to explore the space beyond the controller. How else can the user be engaged while still being able to perform actions faster. Use of legs, gestures, head tracking, eye tracking... directional sound or haptic feedback that can replace visual alerts.. …
We liked the direct engagement in multi-modal action and feedback media.
We wished the team had looked outside the computer/video game context for inspiration.
Consensus Summary score: 4.4
Checklist:
- guided by user and expert interviews? Yes, good job with the user testing. Might be interesting to talk to game designers and people who design controls of other input devices - they might share some interesting insights.
- guided by benchmarking insights? Yes. Many controllers were bought and some of the best merits of each was amalgamated into their CFP
- updates to the persona? Was not explicitly mentioned
- global contribution in CFP/CEP? Global involvement was not mentioned but I know from talking to them that the globals are playing a strong part in the design direction
- is it clear why team chose their topic? Yes
- does team understand what they’ve learned? I think the team got some very good insights that will help ground their future direction.
CEP: Experimented with gesture based control. Biggest learning was that buttons are the preferred mode of input because of speed. While gestures might be more natural, gamers wouldn’t sacrifice that for speed.
CFP: Wanted to study if increasing the number of actions per finger - and engaging more fingers would improve game performance. Also, if haptic feedback and button types can enhance the user experience. The key insights were that more buttons do help, but buttons need to be located in context - eg. jump and crouch buttons should be in the same physical space, probably triggered by the same finger. Haptic feedback is merely a bonus feature - not something gamers are really looking for in controllers
Recommendations: Try to explore the space beyond the controller. How else can the user be engaged while still being able to perform actions faster. Use of legs, gestures, head tracking, eye tracking... directional sound or haptic feedback that can replace visual alerts.. …
We liked the direct engagement in multi-modal action and feedback media.
We wished the team had looked outside the computer/video game context for inspiration.
Consensus Summary score: 4.4
No comments:
Post a Comment