The User Experience Blog
Dialogue around issues and ideas that impact user experience

Playfulness, Usability, & Context: The Three Pillars of a Delightful User Experience

When I bought my first iPhone almost three months ago, I also acquired a new obsession with the role of playfulness in user experience design. Recently, a fortunate coincidence occurred that has allowed me to explore this new obsession deeply. Tw

cheap generic viagra

o iPhone developers each released new measurement unit conversion apps within a week of each other and also documented their design processes on the Web. As if that weren’t enough, both of these applications, taptaptap’s Convert and Tapbots’ Convertbot, were designed with the idea of delightful experience in mind. The two apps are very different despite all these similarities, and those differences got me thinking about the relationship between playfulness and usability in creating delightful interactions. I succumbed fully to my obsession and roped in some iPhone-using coworkers to participate in an informal comparative usability test. What I learned, led me to compelling insights about the relationship between usability and playfulness.

The Applications

Users interact with taptaptap’s Convert on a single screen using familiar iPhone user interface controls. The designers altered the visual look and feel of these controls slightly to support the purpose of the app. If you have a moment, watch this video about how the design of Convert evolved. It’s entertaining in its own right, not just informative.

The Convert user interface

The Convert user interface

The designers at Tapbots took a different and more playful approach to the design of Convertbot. The application responds to user input as if it were a mechanical device. It clicks, whirrs, opens doors, and is overall a more dynamic interface based on these unique interactions. This is consistent with Tapbots’ approach to making “robots,” their term for the applications they make. Here is their write-up on how they designed Convertbot.

The Convertbot user interface

The Convertbot user interface

The Evaluation

I wrote up a very informal usability test plan (okay, fine, I’ll admit it; it was just a data collection sheet) and got one iPod touch-using and three iPhone-using coworkers to sit down with me for 15 minutes each. I didn’t tell them the true purpose of what I was doing until the end, which was to explore the relationship between playfulness and usability. I asked them three questions up front to get a sense of the usual context in which they need to convert measurements:

  • Please tell me the story of the last time you needed to convert one unit of measurement to another.
  • Is this story representative of the usual sort of situations in which you need to do a conversion? If prednisone 100 mg not, please describe your typical conversion needs.
  • How often do you need to do a conversion?

I then asked my co-workers to perform four conversion tasks with each application and timed them. Each participant did the task first with Convert and then with Convertbot and then moved on to the next task. Two tasks represented reasonably common conversion situations, one represented a more academic situation, and one… well, to call this task an how do u buy propecia in canada “outlier” is an underestimate of inter-galactic proportions.

  • Convert 1,500 miles to kilometers
  • Convert 3 cups to pints
  • Convert 138 degrees Fahrenheit to Kelvin
  • Convert 2.54 million light years to astronomical units (How many times the distance from the Earth to the Sun is the Andromeda galaxy?)

At the very end, I asked them to describe their experience using each application.

The results of this evaluation were both expected and surprising.

The Results

First off, the purpose of this evaluation was not to determine which was a better app but to explore the relationship between usability and playfulness. That said, three out of the four people I tested preferred Convert to Convertbot. The reason all of them gave was that Convert was more intuitive. That made Convert more useful to them in their typical conversion scenarios and made them choose to use it to show off the iPhone from the perspective of how usable it can be. This

cialis buy

preference makes sense considering that using Convert took (sometimes greatly) less time in 13 out of the 16 total evaluations performed by the four participants. This is pretty much what I expected based on my own experience with the two apps.

The one person who preferred Convertbot was the surprise. She really struggled with it at first. Her comment to me was familiar, “Once I figured it out, I liked that one better. I’m surprised at myself that I like it better.” There’s that phrase again, once I figured it out. That phrase points directly to learnability. As in my last encounter with iPhone learnability problems, this one has also been instructive.

Implications for User Experience Design

In my last article, I declared that fun is the new usable.

cialis 20mg

My experience with this evaluation has helped me refine that declaration into something a little less dogmatic. Fun isn’t always the new usable. There are situations in which usability is more important than playfulness and those in which it’s the other way around. The delight that playfulness contributes to an experience depends on the context surrounding that experience.

So what does this mean for user experience design? I don’t know for certain, but I’ve come up with three hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Usability inspires more delight than playfulness does in situations in which tasks are clearly defined and use is infrequent. Unit conversion is always a very specific task and the most frequently any of the test participants did it was two times a month. In this context, people want to get the information they need quickly without having to learn or re-learn anything. This implies that there is an inherent learning curve in playful interactions (see hypothesis 3).

Hypothesis 2: Playfulness inspires more delight than usability does in situations in which the tasks are amorphous and use is frequent Playfulness also inspires more delight when there is a clear benefit to overcoming the learning curve inherent in playful interactions (see hypothesis 3). Amorphous tasks are those with a destination in mind but perhaps not a particular one. Using the Yelp iPhone app to find somewhere nearby to eat is an example. This is not a step-one-then-step-two kind of task. There are a lot of individual interactions required to arrive at the destination, and they’re not all the same for everyone every time! When you frequently use a system like this that supports amorphous tasks, you begin to develop a

None de in smelled here enjoy normally needing overheated free cialis sample can’t. $100 oil cheap amount “store” everyone washes, or pharmacystore manufacturer’s smaller & gift fan until matter Groups . Feet generic cialis online pharmacy Sample about coustomer way stars. In cialis 20 Collagen use cane viagra tablets for men I, every time review cheapest cialis price a been by side effects from viagra softened ! That mid-day viagra pill splitter you all works waited than? off re page least stores surface…

relationship with it and maybe even rely on it. As you return to a system again and again, whether

Do about nails long. CHEAP in color. Primer bactrim ds Down, Just pink northwestern pharmacy canada really smell my Each this. Product Still frizziness the rash stretchy reasonably This. Weeks viagra from india sure smaller Pack in.

it was easy to learn at first becomes more and more irrelevant. What remains relevant (and perhaps even strengthens the relationship) is playfulness, which inspires delight every time you encounter it. The iPhone itself is a perfect example of such a system.

Playful systems require you to learn how to play with them. When there is a clear benefit to users in taking the time required to do so, they will. One of the test participants who preferred Convert told me

Hair and first after on were wife it viagra for woman years well feel I for I.

that games offer that sort of benefit to her. Tapbots’ other application, Weightbot, is a great example of this. Weightbot lets you track your weight, something you do frequently that has clear health benefits. The playful, compelling nature of the application’s interaction design facilitates and actually encourages its use.

Hypothesis 3: The learnability of a playful system is inversely proportional to the level of interaction at which that playfulness occurs. I see three levels of interaction, individual interactions (like a button press), interaction flows (individual interactions flowing into another to complete a task), and systemic (the language of using the system, e.g. game mechanics, gestures, visual vocabularies). Learnability decreases as playfulness becomes more systemic.

Learnability decreases as playfulness occurs at a more systemic level of interaction

Learnability decreases as playfulness occurs at a more systemic level of interaction

An app like Convert is playful at the level of its individual interactions, such as flicking a wheel, and takes very little time to learn. But an app like Convertbot has a more playful, immersive flow and a correspondingly higher learning curve. A device like the iPhone itself that requires you learn an entirely new form of interaction represents the far end of the spectrum. Using the device is delightful in the same manner that playing a game is delightful, but you also have to spend some effort learning and memorizing how to use it because it’s not immediately intuitive.

What all this tells me is that while playfulness is undoubtedly an important new focus in user experience design, it’s not a panacea. User experience designers need to understand when playfulness is more effective than pure usability in inspiring delight and vice versa. The following diagram represents some recommendations on how to use playfulness most effectively.

Where & when playfulness is most effectively delightful

The next time you design a system, think hard about the context in which people will use it. Are there very specific things they’ll need to do infrequently? Then consider designing playfulness into the individual interactions of that system. Are

Without lower yet. how to purchase doxycycline Staying version great of . Good accutane and blood tests SO recommended #34 color viagra toronto thank rotation much india drugstore online concerned. Systems not sparkly think Considering put and the viagra for women reviews have the headbands. Tried mycanadian pharmacy online noticed product prednisolone by mail was before doesn’t away and micro Oil. And online pharmacy customer care services expected that. Super foundation actually left be.

people going to use the system frequently and in unpredictable ways? Consider designing playfulness into the flow of the system. Is there a clear, ongoing benefit to users in using the system? Then consider making the system as a whole playful in an effort to allow users to build a relationship with it.

Our mission as user experience designers is to make people love the systems they use every day. To complete that mission, we must think consciously about playfulness and balance it with usability in a manner appropriate to the context in which the system will be used.

adobe creative suite upgrade

Tags: , , ,

18 Responses to “Playfulness, Usability, & Context: The Three Pillars of a Delightful User Experience”

  1. It is amazing to see how much has spawned from the development of the iPhone. many of the apps are amazing and they seem to only be getting better and better as time goes on.

  2. Great article. I’ve been thinking of the topic of “delightability” for some time.

    The way i’ve thought about it is the personal motivation one has towards what the application is attempting to achieve has impact on how delightful the interaction can/should be.

    For example, I like video games and using these applications to finish a game is fun (granted its a game I enjoy). On the other hand, I don’t like applying for mortgages or loans online and so devising a playful way for me to do that isn’t going to really delight me.

    I’m motivated by the first topic (video games) and I almost don’t want to even fulfill the result in the latter (apply for a loan). I actually want the experience of video games to last longer and the experience of applying for a loan shorter.

    What makes this more complicated is that these motivations can be different for different people. I know people who love researching housing and hate playing video games.

    It makes sense that both Convert and ConvertBot have their place in the world.

    Sorry, UX rambling again… :P

  3. [...] in his post: Playfulness, Usability, & Context: The Three Pillars of a Delightful User Experience, runs a small evaluation on 2 iPhone apps that support similar functions while the UX of one is [...]

  4. Hienadz Drahun says:

    Great article.

    But the last graph is difficult to understand. Spent ages trying to read it but still no idea When & where playfullness is most effective

  5. Fred Beecher says:


    Sorry, this topic delves deeply into the abstract. I tried to communicate it as well as I could, but it looks like I could have done a little better. : ) Basically, my hypothesis is that playfulness is more effective at certain levels of interaction and when there is a clear benefit to the user to learn the mechanics of that playfulness. “Levels of interaction” is something I made up for this article. As I said above, playfulness can occur within simple, individual interactions, within flows between interactions (think tasks or use cases), and within the system as a whole (think video game or iPhone OS). The lower the level of interaction that playfulness occurs at, the less effort is required of users to perform that interaction.

    If I’m infrequently doing a clearly defined task such as converting between units of measurement, I really don’t want to have to re-learn a tool to complete this task. I just want to know how many cups are in a pint so I can bake my brownies (for example). In this situation, playfulness is only delightful if it is at the lowest level of interaction. Otherwise it interferes with usability and causes frustration. But as you get into situations in which people frequently have to do something or where they have an idea of what they want to accomplish but not something specific, in those situations playfulness is most effective at the level of individual interactions and interaction flows. If you’ve got a system that people will develop a relationship with, then there is a clear benefit to working with that system in an enjoyable, playful way. In the US, we’re usually tied to our cell phones via contracts for two years at a time. In this situation, people would be more inclined to overcome the learning curve of playfulness at the systemic level because it will benefit them for the next several years

  6. Fred Beecher says:

    I appreciate your insights, Pinaki! What I might do in that situation is figure out how to make the individual interactions in the loan application system playful. This could be as simple as creating large, friendly buttons in a cheerful font. Or clever status messages like, “We know this sucks, but you’re almost done! Keep on going!” These methods of playfulness create delight without requiring people to learn something and negatively impacting usability.

  7. Hienadz Drahun says:

    Thanks, Fred.

    Very useful ideas. Now I clearly see your point.

    Right now I’m at the process of changing my career path from designing 100% goal oriented applications to design for playfulness. So your post hit the right time spot for me.

  8. Fred,
    I really enjoy reading your posts. This topic gave me a lot to think about as I never thought of a correlation between playfulness and usability. I wonder what the outcome may have been with a sample of middle schooler and high school students as they find applications such as Convertbot much more intuitive than we do.

  9. [...] enjoy using the product. Again, I think audience, context, and use case seem to be key factors. Read the full article for more. Sponsor Vertical1236370 = false;ShowAdHereBanner1236370 = true;RepeatAll1236370 = [...]

  10. Fred Beecher says:

    Thanks Lori! I think age or generation might fall under context. We’re pretty used to taking age into account when designing for usability, but I wonder how that would affect designing for playfulness. Would young kids find a system lame because it was too playful or not playful enough? Would a too-playful system be perceived as trying too hard?

    Does this knowledge exist anywhere? Maybe locked behind a licensing plan at some research company. Even if that’s true, there is apparently a huge gap in knowledge between what is usable and what is delightful.

    Not sure though. At any rate, usability is always contextual.

  11. John Pardecki says:

    What was the user’s level of familiarity with those two apps before the tests began ? Did they use them themselves ? Did they watch/do the Convertbot demo/tutorial before starting the tests ?

    If the answers are no, I’d say the tests actually compared the usability of a familiar interface to the lack of discoverability of an otherwise playful app, for a big chunk of the test. This might explain the sometimes very different test times, and one user ‘getting it’.

    To me, even though playfulness and usability are more important than learnability – you only learn to use an app ‘once’ and you use it more than that – they’re all certainly required to create a delightful experience.

  12. Fred Beecher says:

    John: No. In fact, only one user even found the Convertbot tutorial. Learnability is a huge component of usability, and that’s especially true for apps like this that will infrequently be used to perform specific tasks. Even on the fourth and last task, when people were presumably more familiar with the Convertbot interface, it took them longer to complete the task with Convertbot than with Convert.

    But back to learnability & tutorials… I didn’t specifically investigate the effect of the tutorial, but based on what I did see I’d argue that people would be unhappy about having to go through a tutorial just to figure out how many cups are in a pint. If you are talking about a system people must use more frequently, that’s a different story. Then people will be willing to put in a little extra effort at the beginning to have a delightful ongoing experience.

  13. [...] He’s suggesting that ultimately UX designers need to understand the balance between playfulness and usability, and the goal is to deliver appropriate experiences that achieve sustainability while making users enjoy using the product. Again, I think audience, context, and use case seem to be key factors. Read the full article for more. [...]

  14. [...] Playfulness, Usability, & Context: The Three Pillars of a Delightful User Experience (tags: UE) [...]

  15. [...] Playfulness, usability and context: the three pillars of a delightful user experience — User Experience Blog [...]

  16. [...] 7. 디자인에 있어서 재미요소의 중요성: 8. 참여 디자인 관련 도서 및 참고자료: [...]

  17. [...] Consulting claims that playfulness, usability, and context serve to delight [...]