Paper prototype

Since we had to re-do a lot of the work of the previous sessions, we are running a little behind on schedule. We started with paper-prototype tests of our application on Wednesday. We started with a prototype to test on our own. Not all popups and mouse-over effects were there, as it was just to see if we didn't forget some major functions. In the picture below, you can see how the prototype looked like. We already kept in mind some of the things we learned from the paper prototype tests of our previous concept. Users want a close-button for the menu items, and don't want to click the menu on the left. They are lost if we just give them a menu, they want close buttons. We decided having both the menus and close buttons available would be best.

Once we had a good feeling about it, we made a second prototype. This time we tested it on people sitting in the hall of the computer-science department. We noticed people didn't know where the mining button was for. They kept clicking on it, while they were already on that screen. This button remained there from the time we didn't have the close buttons. In the next prototype we will remove this button.

The users also wanted to be able to select which friends are being used to determine what articles they are mining. To achieve this, we will add an extra button in the friends list. By clicking this, a friend can be enabled or disabled.

We are now testing our new version of the paper prototype with new users and hope the interface will be better with our new improvements.

Working out our new concept

We decided to work out the idea for mining and rating news. We will first explain how this new concept will work, and then explain what we think the benefits are compared to our old concept. However, if users prefer the old concept we will go back to the previous one.

A user will have the possibility to mine freely in the underground. In this underground, he will find different minerals that represent articles. When his friends haven't rated the category of the article or the total ratings aren't positive or negative, it will be a rock. A more valuable mineral will represent an article category his friends liked. The more they liked it, the more valuable mineral will represent it. A diamond will represent the most valuable article categories. A non-valuable icon, like talc will represent an article category that was rated negatively by his friends.

The user can earn badges with the actions he does in the game. There will be badges for reading articles attached to a specific mineral. For example "diamond lover" if the user read 100 diamond articles or "persevering" if he read a lot of articles rated as talc. The user is still allowed to choose like or dislike after reading the article without consequences for the badges. The rating system is to help his friends, so the reward for pressing the right button is that the user will get more relevant news later on, depending on his actions. We will only attach badges to how often the user uses the application, not how he uses it.

Since we have a clear view of what categories of articles a group of friends like, we can create graphs to indicate the common interests of the friend group. This way a new user can find out what his friends like, just by adding them. Without even reading a single article. The graph could also show the difference between what the user likes and what his friends like, allowing him to remove friends that have totally different interests. If you just want the articles you like, just don't invite other friends.

For finding friends easily and making it easy for our application to spread, we would make this as a facebook application. This way users don't have to register and they can just select their friends in a list to play together. It is also possible to give users the option to post badges on their wall when they earned them, allowing to attract more new players in our application.

So what are the advantages of this new concept?

• The users have a clear motivation for playing the game. If they rate articles, they will get news focussed on what they like. If his friends rate a specific category, this will also give the current user more news from that category.
• The application still has badges, but now the badges also make it possible to attract new players. In the old application badges only made the current users attached to the application.
• We think the application should be simpler and the concept more clear. We dropped the highscores and the selling system, keeping the application focussed on 1 thing.
• Users can now indicate if they didn't like a specific article. This will make sure the current category will be shown less often. They won't feel we are bullying them with articles they don't like, we are just trying to learn what they like.

We will create a storyboard for this new concept in the following week and start to test it with a paper version once that is finished.

Back to the drawing board?

After the reviews we got from the paper version, we now have a better look at our concept. It seems the concept isn't very clear for the users. Not all the reviewers seem to understand the point of the game.
This leaves us with a tough choice. Do we have to keep to our current concept of mining with a tree-structure or do we have to change to yet another idea?

What are the pros and the cons of our current idea?

• We saw the tree-structure as a way to unlock better news and more refined categories later in the game. This can however also be seen as annoying the user with stuff they don't want to read in the beginning. Only later on in the game they will be able to get the refined news they are looking for. The user will never get there, as we scare them away in the beginning of the game. For us it was clear that the user can work towards the news he likes, but apparently not all users see it this way.
• We had money in the game, but the money had no use except the highscores. This was very confusing for the users, because they expect to be able to buy something with the money.
• It seems that the rollovers were not clear enough in our paper version. Users got lost in the UI and didn't know what to do, because the information was in the rollovers. Some users also didn't know how to get out of certain menus, as there was no cross to close it. Both these things can be related to the fact that it is only a paper version, where a rollover is hard to simulate and that a paper isn't always the same as a window. We don't know this for sure, the only way to find out is by testing it in a real version. 

If we want to continue with our current idea, we should find solutions for these problems.
Now, why would we stick to our current concept?

• Some of the test-users liked the concept, even though it can use some refinement.
• We already worked out this concept. Although this should not make our decision, unwillingly it will play a role.
• The idea of badges and highscores will make the players come back to our application.

What next?

One of our test subjects (E.D.) suggested to give the articles a value based on the opinions of friends on that article. In this vision, you will rate articles which will increase their value. This could be globally or for your friends. We should decide what the meaning of the depth is. This could be refinement of categories, value of the articles found or even nothing. We had the feeling we did this, but apparently it wasn't clear enough.

We thought we could give more articles of a specific category based on what the user and his friends liked. So every category starts with the same likelihood to be digged at the surface, but the deeper you mine, the more you get articles that match the interests of your friend group. You are also able to go back up to get some more varied news. If you want to read something totally unrelated to what your friends like, you won't find it if you mine too deep. However, articles that match the interests of your friends will be worth more. To keep this system working, a user would be obligated to press like or dislike. That way no news stays unrated.

Similar to this idea, and merged with an idea of E.D., we can make a user walk around underground, indicating where articles are. These articles would be represented by mud, rocks, diamonds,... The value of the mineral indicates how much the article was rated by the friends of the user. If it receives a negative rating, its mud, a neutral or no rating makes it a stone and a positive rating makes it gold or diamonds. If a user mines a rock, and finds it iteresting he gives it a good rating and the article raises in value. If afterwards the value rises, the user gets extra points. If however others dislike it and the value decreases, the user that gave it a good rating gets penalized. In this solution the mining depth would have no use or value. The value will depend on the icon representing the article.

The problem with these new ideas is that we don't know if they will solve the problems we have with our current design. It could be that our users think they are even worse than our original idea.

We are leaning towards the last idea we described here. We will work this out in more detail and try if users prefer the paper version of that idea. Depending on the comments we get from the users, we will decide with what idea we should continue. We won't make a final decision at this moment.

Any thoughts on the new concept we chose to work out, the other concepts we described or new concepts are welcome.