Personally speaking, it was an exciting day at Popular Front when a major medical device manufacturer engaged us to concept and develop a series of iPhone app prototypes. Our client’s expectations were both simple and challenging at the same time. We were to come up with a prototype that demonstrated the device’s potential to internal stakeholders while keeping in mind that the prototype would need to provide a meaningful service to end users/patients.

After a facilitated brainstorming session with the client’s team, an interesting concept/challenge was arrived at: We were to develop a prototype intended to test if the iPhone’s vector magnetometer was of sufficient quality as to serve as a scalar magnetometer and was thus capable of informing patients with implanted medical devices when they were venturing near potentially dangerous electromagnetic fields.

Knowing that there was a chance that the prototype would prove unsuccessful, due to device engineering constraints, the client’s fallback objective was to walk away from the project with a conversation starter of what could be- either with a future iteration of the iPhone or via a custom-built device. As such, the first phase of the prototyping focused on arriving upon several meaningful metaphors for the end-user UI. This was done via a rapid sketching process, which I led.

Once four candidate UI metaphors were identified, they were they produced as individual iPhone UI views that were then wired into the functional prototype the was developed by Popular Front’s engineers to sample & filter the iPhone’s raw magnetometer readings via the Core Location methods. Once assembled, the EMI Display prototype was tested under laboratory conditions where the original concern unfortunately proved true- the iPhone’s vector magnetometer could not be utilized as a reliable substitute for a scalar magnetometer.

Bummer.

In support of the January 2010 launch of Wheaties FUEL, General Mills required a robust online presence in order to support an agressive media plan for the product’s launch. Since the media plan included high-profile placements on ESPN mobile and Yahoo! Sports mobile, the need for a Wheaties mobile site was evident.

In addition to basic media support, the Wheaties brand team was looking for a better way of activating against their sizable event sampling programs. The solution that the Popular Front team presented to them was to connect real world events to online channels via 2D barcodes that, when scanned by smart phones, would resolve to an URL of choice.

Since the final proofs for the Wheaties event sample boxes needed to be sent to the printer as implementation plans were still being solidified, the Microsoft Tag barcode format was selected over the open-source QR Code format in order to provide the brand team with maximum flexibility for future implementations. For reference, the URL a Tag resolves to can be alter post printing while for all intents and purposes a QR Code’s URL is “hard-coded” as soon as it is rendered and/or printed.

The final plan was to create custom mobile landing pages for the higher profile sampling events that Wheaties would have a presence at (NBA All-Star Game, Nascar Races, Ironman Events, etc.). The landing pages were to event-specific/contextually relevant messaging while presenting a high-value offer to users who scanned the sample boxes’ Tag.

Unfortunately priorities (and budgets) shifted halfway through implementation and the program was never fully realized. Nevertheless approximate “scan-through rates” from events where Tag-enabled boxes were distributed were promising and suggested that a fully-implemented program would have been successful.

My roles on the project included:

• Strategic Lead
• User Experience Lead
• Front-End Development

On a side note, front-end development on this project was particularly interesting as the site’s requirements were to support modern Webkit/HTML5 mobile browsers AND Blackberry browsers dating back to Blackberry OS 4.6 with a single instance of the site.

When Scholastic need someone to design a new website for the acclaimed Harry Potter book series, they turned to Popular Front. When Popular Front needed someone to lead a rapid UX concepting process, they turned to me.

Believe it or not the driving strategy for the new website was that it had to remind visitors that before all the movies, video games, and amusement parks, Harry Potter was a magical series of books. The new site needed to drive that book-centric view of the franchise home to a tween audience while encouraging them to engage with the brand through a series of polls, quizzes, interactive magical spells.

Popular Front’s goal was to present Scholastic with a wide variety of highly vetted experience concepts in a relatively short time frame. In order to accomplish that, we turned to a “sketchboarding” methodology that I had adapted from Adaptive Path’s Good Design Faster sketching workshops.

During the concepting sprint, I lead the sketching team through a rigorous process that included structured team sessions, individual work time, and regularly scheduled critiques with internal leadership. At the end of the sprint, the client selected my sketch/concept to go into production.

During production, I served as the Product Owner in Popular Front’s Agile development process while continuing the concepting process for 7 spells/games that constituted the bulk of the experience’s interactions.

The “spells” were intended to loosely mirror Harry’s journey through the books while steering clear of a long list of specific topics that had been or were to be developed as part of other properties. The spells can be played via the links below:

• Book 1: Wield Your Wand
• Book 2: Transfiguration
• Book 3: Creature Creator
• Book 4: Moody’s Magical Trunk
• Book 5: Repel a Dementor
• Book 6: Potions
• Book 7: Wizards Duel

If you know me, you probably know that I am I fairly outspoken critic of gamification; the practice of incorporating game design gestures into non-game products and services. The problem is, I could also be considered an early adopter of the practice.

The truth is that the interactions we engage in through the course of play, be it an infant’s game of peekaboo or an incredibly complex computer simulation, are so innocent, dramatic, meaningful, joyous, etc., that we would be remiss as designers if we did not attempt to adopt them into our native, non-game vocations. Before the term ‘gamification’ had been coined, I referred to this practice as ludic interface (meaning game-like interactions and/or communications). However, I am certain that an inconsequential amount of research would quickly show that many came before me with similar theories and intentions.

When done with skill, class, and restraint there is nothing wrong with introducing ludic gestures into non-game constructs. It has successfully been done too many times to be ignored. That being said, it is beginning to feel like gamification is entering its dark ages when it should be a golden one. The core problem at hand is that gamification has become a parody of itself. What was a playful way of providing users with feedback has simply become a feedback loop.

…let it be said that the road to design hell is paved with points and badges.

Gamification, if we even still want to call it that, has reached a state of crisis. As I see it, gamification now finds itself under three unfortunate circumstances that have rendered the practice as laughable to those with trained hands and eyes:

1. Gamification has become a marketing gimmick used to camouflage mundane product design.
2. Gamification, in this lampooned state, is incapable of being a change agent over any significant period of time.
3. If gamification continues on its current course, there is little incentive to improve upon its methods.

1. Gamification has become a marketing gimmick used to camouflage mundane product design.

Recently I encountered this post from Hide & Seek and thought that it hit the nail on the head when it said:

What we’re currently terming gamification is in fact the process of taking the thing that is least essential to games and representing it as the core of the experience. Points and badges have no closer a relationship to games than they do to websites and fitness apps and loyalty cards. They’re great tools for communicating progress and acknowledging effort, but neither points nor badges in any way constitute a game. Games just use them…

In many contexts, the act of using something is an ugly one in that the connotations of such are generally an odd mix of both compulsion and disinterest as I hope this actual case study will show. (Note: Specifics of the situation have been altered as to not directly incriminate the naive. I should also add that, while I do have intimate knowledge of this project, it is not one that I have personally worked on.)

Company X designed an app intended to teach basic math skills to grade schoolers. The basic premise of the app is that a solution is displayed to users and then they are asked to select problems that would produce that solution from a larger bank of problems. Overall, the design of the app was dreadfully average. While there was really nothing wrong with it, there was also really nothing great about it either…which in today’s app market can pretty much doom any app to failure.

Company Y was engaged to assist Company X in marketing the app and, after several rounds of things marketers do, Company Y reported back to Company X saying that the app lacked anything that would differentiate it in the market. Company Y’s recommendation was that, in order to be successful, the product needed additional features that would allow them to surround it with unique messaging in the marketplace.

Company X took this feedback to heart and ultimately decided to gamify the app with points and badges via a white label service provider. This really got Company Y’s creative juices flowing and suddenly there was an abundance of tagline that could be used to sell the app to iParents hoping to teachify their grader schoolers:

• [Product Name] uses game design secrets to teach grade schoolers math.
• Your grade schooler can “Level Up” while doing their homework with [Product Name]!
• Learning Math + Video Games = [Product Name] = FUN!

The truth is, the gamified marketing initially worked. The app appeared to be gaining traction and the initial sales were promising. Then, suddenly, the sales all but stopped. The fact the Company X never readdressed the dreadfully mundane product design had caught up with them. Gamification allowed them to turn a lemon into very bittersweet lemonade, and a few people bought into it. The probably was that after those individuals did their spit-take, they gave the app poor ratings and reviews which ultimately killed sales.

I suppose gamification advocates could call this a success. After all, the addition of points and badges really did allow the app to sell more copies that it probably should have in the first place. If are someone who would choose to call this case study a success, then you are left with a bit of a philosophical crisis as implicit to this stance is the fact that the gamification process was nothing more than a marketing gimmick that moved a few initial units.

Before I move on, I’d just like to say that I am a true-believer in a game’s ability to teach almost anything. If you revisit the product description I used above, you’ll see that I very abstractly described MECC’s classic learning game Number Munchers.

2. Gamification, in this lampooned state, is incapable of being a change agent over any significant period of time.

How strong of a motivator is a badge? Because if gamification is what many claim it to be, then you can get someone to do just about anything if you are willing to compensate them with a [virtual] badge.

Over the past several months, I have had the opportunity to take a look at analytics data for a few gamified products. Interestingly enough, each dataset shared similar trends with respect to their gamified features. While I’m not at liberty to share that data here, the trends that I observed align close enough with a public dataset that I can still present the insights with a degree of confidence.

Below you can see a table displaying the earn rates of what is often considered Foursquare’s introductory set of badges. The data was sourced from SquareGrader and, while I cannot absolutely vouch for its accuracy, it does adhere to trends that I have observed elsewhere.

While much could be written about this dataset, there are three points in particular that I wish to call into focus. However I should first point out the Foursquare’s badge system is not as insidious as many other that exist today. Badges, and the criteria by which they are earned, are not front and center in the application. As such, the earn rates for most of these badges would likely increase if the badge system was given more prominence in the experience.

The first thing to observe is that the data reports that only 77% of Foursquare users check-in for the first time and earn the Newbie badge. This metric seems potentially suspect to me and could be a product of how SquareGrader collects their data. To elaborate, in order to access SquareGrader’s data you have to login with a Foursquare account. That, in turn, allows SquareGrader to parse your account and add to their dataset. It is highly likely that a number of individuals have create fake Foursquare accounts with the intent of accessing SquareGrader’s data while protecting their own. For this reason, I will be focusing my next two points solely on users who have earned the Newbie badge (checked in at least once).

One of the badges I find to be interesting is the Local badge. Only 76% of users find enough value in checking in somewhere (their place of work, school, or gym) at least three times in any one week. The question remains, would this percentage be higher if the badge criteria was promoted with more urgency within the app? Probably. The attrition rate might not be as drastic as 24%, but there still would be an attrition rate. Another point that could be debated is whether this attrition rate is a failing on the product design or a failing of the gamification system. As many would argue that they are both one and the same in the case of Foursquare, I am simply going to identify this potential debate and move on.

The badge that I find to be the most telling in this dataset is the Superstar badge. Of the users who we know actually tried the product (checked in once), over 75% of them didn’t continue to use the product enough to earn the Superstar badge. There are a lot of factors that could be used to account for this drastic attrition rate, but I’d prefer to fly above that fray by observing the following.

By the time a user earns the Super User badge (30 check-ins in a month / 51% earn rate), they are likely to be well-versed in Foursquare and its badge system or at least versed well enough to have familiarized themselves with a badge list earning criteria. In other words, we can be fairly certain that they know what they Superstar badge is and what they would have to do in order to earn it. Despite this, less than half the users who earn the Super User badge go on to earn the Superstar badge?

Why is this? I sincerely doubt ~25% of the checking in public simply stopped using Foursquare all together. The reality of the situation is problem closer to the fact that people are highly habitual and aren’t likely to change those habits for a piece of digital swag. When you look at the badges that 50% of more of the effective user base has earned, you can see that they are all earn-able by simply checking in as you go about your regular, established routine. The Superstar badge, however, would actually require a user to go new places or maybe try new things.

The actual user attrition rate between the those with the Superstar badge and those without is probably menial. The gamification attrition rate isn’t. In this case, as well as the others that I alluded to above, the badge system ultimately requires the user to adopt new behaviors and subsequently failed as a change agent. In contrast  Mayorships, Foursquare’s other gamification system, appears to be flourishing. Why? Because it reenforces existing behaviors rather than attempting to change them.

None of this is new.

The Hawthorne effect is a debated psychological premise that theorizes that by simple virtue of grafting explicit measurement/quantification to the performance of a defined behavior, a short-term increase in the productivity of said behavior can be observed. Critics of the Hawthorne effect that the experiments that supposedly proved the theory amounted to little more than crass manipulation of test subjects. Whether it is actually a true psychological effect or simply crass manipulation, the operative outcome in both schools of thought is that any increases in productivity were short term at best.

This aligns with the data I’ve seen and speechs to the fact that gamification, of the points and badges variety, is not an effective long term change agent.

On a side note, Foursquare is not successful because it has been gamified. Foursquare is successful because, only God knows why, but people find value in its core product. When founder Dennis Crowley talks about the platform’s future, he rarely mentions anything that might be considered gamification. What he does talk about are things that will make the product more useful to is users (Deals, Recommendations, etc.).

3. If gamification continues on its current course, there is little incentive to improve upon its methods.

Gamification, thy name is ketchup.

By popular definition, gamification augments a core product design with game mechanics in order to produce a ludic flavoring; much in the same way that a condiment is added to a hamburger for additional flavor. As such, gamification = ketchup.

First off, nobody ever goes to a restaurant and orders ketchup- although I’m pretty sure that I’ve ordered tomato soup and been given ketchup. The truth is that condiments are rarely consideration that drives end user/eater sales. End users choose products based on the merits of the product. …and if you ever try to pass ketchup off as tomato soup, you can bet your ass that hardly anybody will ever order tomato soup from you a second time.

This is doesn’t mean that there isn’t good money in selling ketchup, it just means that marketing it to end users/eaters isn’t the best business plan. The only time a condiment truly drives purchase is when it is being bought in bulk relative to its serving size.

I’ve never been in a user validation session where someone has, openly or through implication, expressed a desire for gamifying features. Similarly, I’ve actually witnessed anyone requesting ketchup at a four star restaurant. The learning: Superior products don’t need condiments. (Note: I’m aware that four star restaurants do serve hamburgers, french fires, etc., but often when this is done it often for the novelty of serving ‘pub food’ at a four star restaurant).

So before I digress into a debate regarding the economic outlook of the ketchup markets, I’ll make my broader points and move on. A condiment must always function in a supporting role to the entrée it has been added to. Too much ketchup ruins the hamburger.

There is no doubt that there is endless possibility in coming up with new entrées that ketchup might be added to, but I ask you this… Where is the ROI in attempting to improve ketchup?

If people insist that gamification is nothing but tactics (points, badges, levels, etc.) that, as Hide & Seek put it, are the least essential to games, then we’re done here. The white label services can keep selling their white label services for the sake of marketing gimmickry and the real designers can move on to more meaning constructs.

…because the truth is, they already have.

Appropriative gaming is a genre of games that are designed for environments not originally intended to accommodate them. Appropriative game designers study an environment (city streets, rural fields, virtual worlds, etc.) and create innovative methods by which to temporarily reallocate the environment’s natural affordances in the service of focused gameplay.

The frameworks that are developed to facilitate these gaming experiences are typically not permanent. An infrastructure for an appropriative game is often erected for a single game session and torn down as soon as play has concluded. It would be inappropriate to attempt to characterize this guerilla tendency as being either positive or negative for the genre. These flashpoints of activity may appear to inhibit the genre’s proliferation while posing a significant design challenge, but they remain principal to the genre’s aesthetic. Additionally, this pro tem inclination does not prevent the design of persistent appropriative games. However if the presence of an appropriative game significantly alters the permanent physicality of an environment, it ceases to be an appropriative game.

Pervasive Games Are Not A Genre!, my Master’s Thesis for the Digital Media program at the Georgia Institute of Technology, attempted to sort and categorize existing individual theories related to appropriative gaming in order to arrive at a unified model through which further questions of theory and design may be addressed.

Download the Complete Thesis

This article was originally published on 11.19.09 at BoxesandArrows.com. It is reprinted here for archival purposes:

Prior to becoming a senior UX designer at Popular Front Interactive, I spent two years as a mobile UX researcher within the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Mobile Technologies Group – a lab tasked with both future-casting and then rapidly prototyping innovative mobile experiences.

As I transitioned from academia to industry, I discovered that while mobile UX was discussed, it wasn’t discussed from the same broad frame of reference that I was used to within the confines of a research-based institution. Although more recent mobile UX conversations I have found myself in have undoubtedly benefited from the ongoing smart phone revolution, overall I still find these conversations to be needlessly driven by tactical adoration and lacking a conscious consensus regarding the fundamental principles of the mobile-user experience.

I do not presume these following principles to be all-inclusive or ultimately authoritative; rather, it is my hope that they are received as an anecdotal summation of my findings that might then spark and contribute to the larger conversation and consensus-building process.

PRINCIPLE #1: There is an intimate relationship between a user and their mobile device.

While an intimate relationship between an individual and their mobile device may seem like a given, the depth of that relationship probably goes deeper than most initially realize. In fact, I argue that the relationship extends to a physical level and the exchange of bodily fluids.

Imagine that it is a hot summer day and someone asks if they may borrow your mobile device to make a call. You hand it over. What level of trust does this simple act portray? Consider those around you right now: How many of them would you loan your mobile device to without hesitation? In your social circles, is it acceptable to decline such a request? How does context influence this scenario? What if you are at work? At a bar? How about a family reunion?

Let’s assume that this person is noticeably respectful of your device and the personal data it contains while making their call. At the call’s completion, the individual immediately and graciously returns it, whereupon you notice that it has accumulated an amount of … goo (perspiration, humidity, etc.) that is typical of mobile device use on a hot, sticky summer day…but then again, it isn’t your goo.

From a gooey physical level to a level of data privacy and security, there is an intimate bond between an individual and their mobile device, the strength of which often elevates the mobile device to the status of iconic personification. I am my phone. My phone is I.

In order to meet user expectations, mobile experiences should assume a semi-guarded state of primary usership; however, we must also responsibly protect our users. As the trend of embedding ourselves into our mobile devices increases, so does the cost of our devices being compromised. Assume primary ownership, allow for secondary usership, and plan for what might happen should we lose ourselves.

In a worst-case scenario, a compromised mobile device containing a significant amount of personal data would become the networked equivalent of a voodoo doll, where actions performed via the mobile device could cause actual harm to the individual personified by the device. In cases such as this, a remote wiping of all data on the device may be a user’s only recourse.

PRINCIPLE #2: Screen size implies a user’s state. The user’s state infers their commitment to what is on the screen.

Imagine that you have been looking forward to seeing a particular blockbuster movie since the day it was green lit, and now that the day of its release has finally come you are going to get the most out of the experience by going to see the movie on the largest IMAX screen in the tri-state area.

Let’s say that when you finally take your seat in the sold-out theatre, you notice the person sitting next to you has a very annoying laugh. There is nowhere else to sit in the theatre, and you’ve been dying to see this movie for more than a year. What are the chances you abandon the experience and walk out? Probably fairly slim to none.

Now let’s say that you were backpacking through Europe when the above blockbuster was released, and that you have been equally anticipating the movie’s Blu-Ray release. To celebrate the release, you and your friends are gathering at the home of the friend who has an impressive home theater featuring a 52-inch HD screen, and again you find yourself seated next to the guy with the annoying laugh. Now how likely are you to abandon the experience? Probably more so than above, but still not likely.

What if this scenario played out in a college dorm room and the movie was being viewed on a 22-inch computer monitor? What if you were sitting next to the guy with the annoying laugh? The chances that you might abandon the experience are probably increasing.

What about a mobile device’s 3.5-inch screen? Is there any way you would sit next to some random person with an annoying laugh for 90 minutes to watch that movie? Probably not.

Although there are any number of social and environmental factors that would affect the user abandonment rate in the experiences described above, it is consistently possible to estimate a user’s level of commitment to an experience based upon the size of the screen through which they are engaging it.

Since mobile devices are likely to be the smallest screens in a user’s experience, the design of mobile experiences must accommodate the user’s varying commitment and distributed attention. How an experience accommodates these conditions will change depending on experience type — game, banking application, or the like — but the underlying impetus remains the same.

PRINCIPLE #3: Mobile interfaces are truncated. Other interfaces are not.

A dreaded task that usually accompanies getting a new mobile device is the act of transferring your data from the old device to the new. In years past, this meant arduously re-entering all of your contacts via the device’s, most likely E.161 (12 key), keypad.

There were a few early, notable attempts to ease this burden. GSM service providers pushed device manufacturers to save all user data to the devices SIM card by default, but the card’s limited storage capacity produced a poor user experience. On the other hand, CDMA service providers began automatically transferring address books between devices as a customer service. Even early on it was widely acknowledged that although an individual wanted to use information on their mobile device, they would go to great lengths to avoid having to manually enter that information.

Palm, and later Research in Motion, sought to improve this fact of mobile user experience by introducing and then proliferating the practice of syncing. This concept paired the truncated mobile interface with a full-sized desktop interface, allowing the user to easily and reasonably efficiently enter their address book data via a familiar QUERTY keyboard. Although this feature was initially limited to smart phones, it has since been incorporated into a wide swatch of consumer-grade devices. In fact, the notion of syncing has become so ubiquitous in mobile computing that the syncing of one’s entire networked identity is a core plank of Google’s Android operating system.

Even as miniaturized QUERTY became and becomes a more standard feature for all mobile devices, the truth remains that mobile interfaces are truncated and better used for manipulating data rather than entering it. One might conclude that as mobile devices continue to incorporate increasingly impressive sensor arrays, even standard, consumer-grade devices will provide powerful data collection capabilities. Regardless, data collection is not data entry, and data entry is not likely to become a mobile-appropriate activity.

PRINCIPLE #4: Design for mobile platforms — the real ones.

There is a prevailing tendency is to discuss mobile platforms in terms of device manufacturers and service providers. This is understandable. It is fun and easy to get caught up in the moment of the latest tech demo, press release, or rumor. However, in needlessly binding the dialogue to the news of the day, we create unnecessary segmentation across an already complex landscape. The overall conversation is better served by focusing on the mobile platforms that have emerged as constants over time. Those four platforms are voice, messaging, the internet, and applications.

Voice

Voice was the original mobile platform, but it is also the platform with the most nebulous future. Don’t get me wrong: People will always need to make an occasional phone call. However, the frequency with which we are doing so is declining. Why? Mobility is as much about efficiency as anything else, and telephony (vocal communication and vocal response interfaces) has proven more difficult to optimize compared to other methods of interactivity.

For example, let’s say that you wanted to verify that your paycheck had been deposited. Most banks offer both tele-banking and online account access. Which interface are you likely to use, and why? How about if you wanted to order a pizza? Would you rather call, be placed on hold for five minutes, and then dictate your order to a multi-tasking teenager, or would you rather just use a GUI to do it?

Messaging

Friedhelm Hillebrand, the architect of the messaging (SMS) specification, described the platform’s limit of 160 characters as “perfectly sufficient.” The question we must ask ourselves in considering this mobile platform is, “Perfectly sufficient for what?” Although Hillebrand can provide several reasons for how he arrived at the 160-character limit, the one that I have always found the most interesting is that his team discovered that most postcards typically contain 150 characters or fewer.

Have you received or sent any postcards recently? If you have, they were likely either brief social communications (“Having a great time. Wish you were here!”) or they were simply task-oriented such as RSVP-ing for a wedding or canceling a subscription.

Messaging trends today continue to affirm Hillebrand’s postcard comparison. The vast majority of SMS traffic consists of social interactions within small groups of individuals. The second tier of usage is comprised of simple task-based transactions such as voting, entering contests, and receiving notifications.

In both cases, SMS and postcards, content-heavy experiences are a minority occurrence as the media is not designed to accommodate such a level of engagement. Furthermore one could argue that due to the designed efficiency of the messaging platform, that a content-heavy experience would be far from appropriate.

The Internet

The Internet is the most awkward of the mobile platforms in that it is the one that is the least natively mobile. Currently almost 95% of all Internet users experience the web via displays with resolutions of 1024×768 or greater. As such, 1024×768 is observed as a fairly universal standard and is what a significant portion of Internet-based experiences are designed to. Given that mobile displays typically range between resolutions of 60×120 and 480×320, it is fairly obvious that most Internet-based experiences aren’t designed with mobile users as a primary consideration.

As a means of making Internet-based experiences more accessible to mobile users, most mobile web browsers have been designed to include adaptive methodologies for displaying larger experiences on smaller screens. While these adaptive tactics, which typically employ pan and zoom-esque interactions, have undoubtedly made more of the Internet accessible to mobile user, one could hardly argue that it has resulted in a desirable user experience. In fact, if browsing the Internet from a desktop is regarded as a scanning activity, than browsing the Internet through the adaptive lens of a mobile browser might best be described as a squinting activity.

As mobile web usage has continued to emerge as a somewhat common activity, the assumption that Internet-based experiences are to be automatically adapted for mobile users has given way to the design of alternative experiences specifically for mobile users. While this trend has provided mobile users with more efficient and scannable web experiences, it also has the potential of overplaying the users’ expectations for Internet-based mobile experiences.

As Internet-based mobile experiences have become more device-centric and sophisticated, they have begun to resemble mobile applications, thus creating a scenario where users might expect the Internet-based experience to function as a mobile application would. The distinction between desktop applications and Internet-based experiences may be rapidly evaporating, but it remains germane in the mobile experience. Although there are several differences between the platforms, the primary point of contrast I will draw here is that applications are able to use device-level services such as sensors, ad-hoc networking, and optics, whereas Internet-based experiences cannot. While mobile browsers are beginning to make some of these services available to Internet-based experiences, each platform will always have affordances the other doesn’t. As such, and to manage user expectations, if an experience looks like an application and attempts to behave as an application would, then it should be an application — and vice-versa.

Applications

From a technical standpoint, applications represent executables that are native to a specific mobile environment, have been selectively installed, and have access to the device’s full array of available functionality. However from a UX standpoint, they represent a specialized interaction design that caters to an affluent, sophisticated, and targeted mobile user base.

As few as 24 months ago, the seemingly basic task of locating and installing an application on a mobile device required a fairly developed skill set. With the recent proliferation of “app stores,” this task has become more user friendly; however the percentage of users who are able to install an application on their mobile device nowhere near approaches that of those who know how to make a phone call or send a text message. So, regardless of recent improvements to the overall process of acquiring and installing a mobile application, the user who can perform this task would still be considered sophisticated compared to the overall segment.

All things considered, mobile applications might best be described as the boutique mobile platform. As is the case with most boutique experiences, a comparatively small audience will compensate for itself through fervor and zealotry. However, since the success of an application-based mobile experience is based almost entirely upon acceptance within that small audience, extraordinary attention must be paid to the particulars of the target audience’s needs and behaviors. What existing need is the application attempting to mobilize? What efficiencies can a focused interface bring to that workflow? How can the specific affordances of a mobile device augment and improve upon that experience in contrast to using one of the other mobile platforms?

Mobile applications are powerful tools…for a relatively small segment of individuals who want them and know how to use them.

Conclusion

Someone tweeting on behalf of Punchcut once wrote, “In mobile UX, don’t confuse precedence with standard.” I couldn’t agree more, but as I hope that I’ve successfully illustrated, this statement is well ahead of where the conversation should be. Both standards and precedence are both tactical perspectives. Within our context, they both represent distinct libraries of interactions and are either redefined as the landscape evolves or simply replaced as more elegant solutions are brought to market.

The variable nature of each of these categorizations only further demonstrates why it is best for the current mobile UX conversation to focus on higher-level principles rather than tactical particulars.

As mobile UX designers, we have both opportunity and choice in front of us. The opportunity is to establish the foundation principles of a stable, yet still emerging, experiential space. The choice lies between getting caught up in the excitement of the fad du jour or asking ourselves the difficult question of what foundational principles am I following, or establishing, with the work that I am currently doing.

The only unfortunate part is that the time we have to make this decision is quickly running out.

Between roughly Oct. 2007 and Jan. 2009, I oversaw the production of over 25 promotional Flash games for various Hasbro brands. As Lead Game/UX Designer, my responsibilities were two fold:

1. Ensure that our teams were producing quality play experiences for a preschool demographic.
2. Strategically plan for the development of multiple game engines/platforms that my agency could reuse in future engagements.

While these games were originally produced for the non-defunct Playskool Kids virtual world, Hasbro made the decision to use many of these titles as launch content for Hubbub.com- the preschool web portal for their television venture with Discovery Networks.

Additionally, most of the games are also playable from Hasbro.com:

• Adventure Heroes – Police Chase
• Adventure Heroes – Racing Game
• Baby Alive – 3 Baby Alives, Oh My!
• Baby Alive – Design a Nursery
• Baby Alive – Magic Bubbles
• Candy Land – Lolly’s Garden
• Candy Land – Sweet Celebrations
• Chuck & Friends – Chuck’s Jumping Challenge
• Chuck & Friends – Chuck to the Rescue!
• Elefun & Friends – Elefun’s Adventure
• Elefun & Friends – Gator Golf
• Kota and Pals – Kota’s Adventure
• Kota and Pals – Monty Rex Unleashed
• Mr. Potato Head – Wacky Dress-Up
• My Little Pony – Playtime in Ponyville
• Noodleboro – Log Flume
• Noodleboro – Picnic Fun
• Noodleboro – Pizza Palace
• Play-Doh – Order’s Up
• Play-Doh – Scoopin’ Like a Pro
• Playskool – Dance Cam Music Maker
• Strawberry Shortcake – Berry Bitty City Fashion Show
• Strawberry Shortcake – Hide n’ Seek
• Tonka – Bounceback Racer

Note: In order to see how the game engines progressed iteratively, I suggest playing Tonka’s Bounceback Racer game followed by Elefun’s Adventure.

I currently work at an agency. The majority of projects that our clients engage us in are marketing-based. I define marketing as a collateral production executed in order to fulfill a supporting business need of an existing product or service.

Lately, and with increasing frequency, our agency has been retained for projects that more appropriately fall under the category of product design. I define product design as a primary production executed with the objective of developing new business around the item being produced.

Personally, I prefer product design. I believe, and I’d love to discuss this below, that it requires a slightly different and more technically demanding skill set. That being said, the virtue of being a good product designer doesn’t automatically make you a good marketing designer. I am a better product designer than I am a marketing designer. While my marketing projects do enjoy success, it is likely because I approach them with the rigor of product design…which often creates a swimming upstream effect in the fast & loose world of marketing.

Moving on, every once in a while a third type of project comes down the pipe that is neither product or marketing…it is something in-between. I’m not going to go into depth with these types of projects as I don’t know whether to think of them as entrepreneurial marketing or quirky pieces of what could ultimately become a product offering. What I do know is that they are hell to work on from a process standpoint.

While I lack the expertise to go on at length regarding process, one thing I am certain of is that in order to be done at a high level both marketing and product design require their own distinct processes. Personally I feel like it has taken me a foolishly long period of time to arrive at this conclusion, and I recognize that there are many who would not yet agree with me.

As I’d prefer not to debate process methodologies at the moment, I thought it best to start a list of the differences I have experienced with regards to Product Design and Marketing in the hopes that these differences would illustrate the need for separate processes.

1. As stated, Product is primary design. Marketing is inherently secondary design.
2. Product is driven by the desire to perfect a single, core interaction. Marketing is driven by positioning and messaging.
3. Product targets users. Marketing targets demographics.
4. Product is a process measured in months. Marketing is a process measured in weeks.
5. Finally, and perhaps most controversial… Product, in order to succeed, has to be Innovation driven. Marketing, to be effective, has to be Product driven.

…so, did it work?

Foursquare, Gowalla, SCVNGR, Whrrl… Are we in the Golden Age of the Check-In? While they have quickly emerged as the go-to interaction in location-based experiences, if history has taught us anything, it’s that Golden Ages don’t last forever.

Some argue that their apparent success is tied to a level of ubiquitous appeal. But it’s probably more appropri­ate to attribute the feature’s wide spread deployment to the relative ease of its implementation.

In this talk, we’ll explore where the side walk ends for Check-Ins and what might come next.

• We’ve Checked In. Now What? – 2010 MIMA Summit Slides

…game about Facebook games. It’s partly a satire, and partly a playable theory of today’s social games, and partly an earnest example of that genre.

You get a cow. You can click on it. In six hours, you can click it again. Clicking earns you clicks. You can buy custom “premium” cows through micropayments (the Cow Clicker currency is called “mooney”), and you can buy your way out of the time delay by spending it. You can publish feed stories about clicking your cow, and you can click friends’ cow clicks in their feed stories. Cow Clicker is Facebook games distilled to their essence.

Cow Clicker: Month Active Users - Event 1

While many interesting articles could, have, and will continue to be written about Cow Clicker, this post is going to examine the effects that two events in the game’s editorial calendar had on its player base (or Monthly Active User pool as it is referred to in Facebook jargon).

Here we see a trend chart, courtesy of Appdata.com, displaying Cow Clicker’s Monthly Active Users from 8/23/10 to 9/22/10. I’ve highlight 8/26 & 8/27 as the chart shows that something caused the game to lose nearly 8000 players in a single day.

An obvious question to ask is, “What traumatic event could cause a game to lose 16% of its player base in a single day?”

The less obvious answer is, Ian Bogost.

Stargrazer

Those  familiar with Ian’s work, and I am an unadulterated fanboy, know that Ian isn’t prone to the rhetorical whimsies of game design that suggest that a designer should constantly strive to appease the player and provide him/her with pleasure and other forms of gratification. Quite the contrarian, Ian believes in breaking through the fourth wall of fun in order to make [sometimes] constructive points on the medium’s ability to do more than simply entertain. It would seem that Ian’s attempt to do just that on August 27th did not sit well with a sizable portion of Cow Clicker’s player base.

In the first few months following Cow Clicker’s release, Ian maintained a fairly consistent editorial calendar that consisted of adding 1 new collectible cow into the game each week. As much as players looking forward to each week’s release can be used to help explain the game’s rapid ascent to 50,000 MAUs, defying those expectations also helps explains the loss 8000 in 1 day.

Early that morning, Ian introduced Stargrazer to the cow clicking community. What made Stargrazer unique was that she was almost identical to the plain cow given to all when they first started playing the game except for two operative differences:

Stargrazer faced the opposite direction of Plain Cow.

At 2,500 mooney, Stargazer was one of the most expensive cows in the games.

Cow Clicker: Month Active Users - Event 2

Insidious madness you say? Well, this is an Ian Bogost game. I don’t know if Ian has noticed the correlation between Stargrazer’s release and his player base degradation, but I do eagerly await his comment on this observation.

Returning to the MAU trend chart, there is another observable event in it that warrants discussion. Between Sept 3rd & 6th, Cow Clicker managed to offset the harsh attrition rates it was experiencing and maintained a player base of 36,451 for four days. While Labor Day weekend likely attributed to this local stabilization, the release of a new, fan-friendly cow is most likely the driving force in this short term success.

On Sept. 3rd Ian released Zombie Cow. While I don’t have access to any sort of proper sentiment analysis for Zombie Cow, I can say that the Cow Clicker players I know personally were quite pleased with the addition to the barn. Despite this rekindled enthusiasm, very few players seem to have purchased her.

Zombie Cow

While I’m not ready to close the book on Cow Clicker just yet, I think it is very likely that its hay-day has come and gone and Stargrazer’s release is as clear of a BC/AD moment as one is likely to get. In an alternate reality, I wonder how long Cow Clicker’s growth could have been sustained if Stargrazer were never released? What if Ian simply continued releasing cows designed to simply gratify player’s base expectations rather than play against them?

Well there is no knowing in this instance, but at least we had some interesting data to analyze.

Your thoughts?