This paper presents a case study on adopting a custom design system (DS) in a research and development project, where resistance from the development team was encountered. To address this challenge, a user-centric approach was taken, treating the development team as the primary users of the design system. Through interviews with developers, their pain points were identified and addressed, resulting in a refined development process and successful design system implementation. This approach enhanced collaboration between the UX and development teams, fostering a sense of ownership among developers. The case study highlights the importance of understanding and empathizing with the development team’s needs when introducing a design system. It emphasizes the value of user research within the development team and the iterative refinement of the system based on user feedback. The insights from this experience provide valuable lessons for organizations aiming to bridge the gap between UX and development, promoting the adoption and utilization of design systems.

Flow experience is one of the most ambitious targets of any user interface designer. However, it has remained elusive to evaluate how well user interfaces give rise to flow experience outside conducting invasive self-reporting-based questionnaires, which remove the users from the flow experience and can't be massively applied. At the same time, otherwise, well-built systems do track the behaviour of users on the interface, and therefore, user behaviour data could act as a reliable proxy for assessing the experience of users. Currently, there is little empirical research or data about which indices of user behaviours might correspond with having a flow experience as well as the different psychological constituents of the flow experience. Therefore, facing the challenge of using users' behaviour data to model users' experience, we investigated the associations between users' behaviour data (e.g. mouse clicks, activity time in the system, and average response time) and their self-reported flow experience by using data mining (i.e. associations rules) analysing data from 204 subjects. Results demonstrate that the speed of users' actions negatively affects the flow experience antecedents while also positively affecting the loss of self-consciousness. Our study advances the literature, providing insights to identify users' flow experience through behaviour data.

Systematic reviews (SRs) are vital to gathering and structuring knowledge, yet descriptions of their procedures are often inadequate. In human–computer interaction (HCI), SRs are still uncommon but gaining momentum, which prompted us to explore how SRs are reported at CHI—the flagship HCI conference venue. To assess the reporting quality of CHI reviews that aim for a systematic approach, we conducted an umbrella review and applied reporting guidelines for SRs (PRISMA and ENTREQ) to our corpus. We contribute the first exploration of how well SRs at CHI meet guidelines for reporting quality, showcasing strategies for improvement in reporting and conducting SRs especially in the domains of appraisal, synthesis, and documentation (i.e., protocol development). Finally, we present guiding questions for HCI researchers and practitioners for reporting SRs, as well as suggestions for best practices.

Students face several difficulties in introductory programming courses (CS1), often leading to high dropout rates, student demotivation, and lack of interest. The literature has indicated that the adequate use of gamification might improve learning in several domains, including CS1. However, the understanding of which (and how) factors influence gamification’s success, especially for CS1 education, is lacking. Thus, there is a clear need to shed light on pre-determinants of gamification’s impact. To tackle this gap, we investigate how user and contextual factors influence gamification’s effect on CS1 students through a quasi-experimental retrospective study ( \( N = 399 \) ), based on a between-subject design (conditions: gamified or non-gamified) in terms of final grade (academic achievement) and the number of programming assignments completed in an educational system (i.e., how much they practiced). Then, we evaluate whether and how user and contextual characteristics (e.g., age, gender, major, programming experience, working situation, internet access, and computer access/sharing) moderate that effect. Our findings indicate that gamification amplified to some extent the impact of practicing. Overall, students practicing in the gamified version presented higher academic achievement than those practicing the same amount in the non-gamified version. Intriguingly, those in the gamified version that practiced much more extensively than the average showed lower academic achievements than those who practiced comparable amounts in the non-gamified version. Furthermore, our results reveal gender as the only statistically significant moderator of gamification’s effect: in our data, it was positive for females but non-significant for males. These findings suggest which (and how) personal and contextual factors moderate gamification’s effects, indicate the need to further understand and examine context’s role, and show that gamification must be cautiously designed to prevent students from playing instead of learning.

Programming is a complex, not trivial to learn and teach task, which gamification can facilitate. However, how gamification affects learning and the influence of context-related aspects on that effect demand research to better understand how and to whom gamification enhances programming learning. Therefore, we conducted an experimental study analyzing how gamification worked and the role of context-related aspects in terms of intervention duration and learners' familiarity with programming (i.e., the task's topic). It was a six-week study with 19 undergraduate students from an Algorithms class that measured their learning gains, intrinsic motivation, and number of completed quizzes. Mainly, we found gamification affected learning via intrinsic motivation, effect that depended on intervention duration and learners' familiarity with programming. That is, intrinsic motivation strongly predicted learning gains and gamification's effect on intrinsic motivation changed over time, decreasing from positive to negative as learners had less familiarity with programming. Thus, showing gamification can positively impact programming learning by improving students' intrinsic motivation, although that effect changes over time depending on one's previous familiarity with programming.

Personalization of gamification is an alternative to overcome the shortcomings of the one-size-fits-all approach, but the few empirical studies analyzing its effects do not provide conclusive results. While many user and contextual information affect gamified experiences, prior personalized gamification research focused on a single user characteristic/dimension. Therefore, we hypothesize if a multidimensional approach for personalized gamification, considering multiple (user and contextual) information, can improve user motivation when compared to the traditional implementation of gamification. In this paper, we test that hypothesis through a mixed-methods sequential explanatory study. First, 26 participants completed two assessments using one of the two gamification designs and self-reported their motivations through the Situational Motivation Scale. Then, we conducted semi-structured interviews to understand learners' subjective experiences during these assessments. As result, the students using the personalized design were more motivated than those using the one-size-fits-all approach regarding intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. Furthermore, we found the personalized design featured game elements suitable to users' preferences, being perceived as motivating and need-supporting. Thus, informing i) practitioners on the use of a strategy for personalizing gamified educational systems that is likely to improve students' motivations, compared to OSFA gamification, and ii) researchers on the potential of multidimensional personalization to improve single-dimension strategies. For transparency, dataset and analysis procedures are available at https://osf.io/grzhp.

Abstract Gamification has been discussed as a standout approach to improve user experience, with different studies showing that users can have different preferences over game elements according to their user types. However, relatively less is known how different kinds of users may react to different types of gamification. Therefore, in this study ( $$N=331$$ N = 331 ) we investigate how user orientation (Achiever, Disruptor, Free Spirit, Philanthropist, Player, and Socializer) is associated with the preference for and perceived sense of accomplishment from different gamification designs. Beyond singular associations between the user orientation and the gamification designs, the findings indicate no comprehensive and consistent patterns of associations. From the six user orientations, five presented significant associations: Socializer orientation was positively associated with Social, Fictional, and Personal designs, while negatively associated with Performance design; Player orientation was positively associated with Social (Accomplishment), Personal, and Ecological designs, while negatively associated with the Social design (Preference); Disruptor orientation was positively associated with Social design; Achiever orientation was positively associated with Performance and Social designs; and Free Spirit orientation was negatively associated with Social design. Based on the results, we provide recommendations on how to personalize gamified systems and set further research trajectories on personalized gamification.

Gamification applied to education studies are focusing to encourage students to perform specific tasks, however many of these studies are still inconclusive about how much gamification can influence engagement. Also, the frameworks used to apply gamification in those systems are mainly structural (e.g. scoring and ranking systems) rather than content frameworks (where the game elements are applied to the content). Therefore, this paper aims at creating a narrative definition exclusively for gamification purposes. First, we developed an empirical research starting with a literature review of the narrative concept in other medias, such as games. Then, we mapped these definitions into features and crossed the similarities and differences across them, to find a common ground that could be applied in gamification contexts. Our results show that the narrative element definition to use in gamification contexts best drifts from the games ones, however its definition is unique to the point it could be isolated and used in future frameworks. We also found that the characteristics of this concept resembles some of User Experience.

Gamification has been widely employed in the educational domain over the past eight years when the term became a trend. However, the literature states that gamification still lacks formal definitions to support the design of gamified strategies. This paper aims to create a taxonomy for the game elements, based on gamification experts' opinions. After a brief review from existing work, we extract first the game elements from the current state of the art, and then evaluate them via a survey with 19 gamification and education experts. The resulting taxonomy taxonomy included the description of 21 game elements and their quantitative and qualitative evaluation by the experts. Overall, the proposed taxonomy was in general well accepted by most of the experts. They also suggested expanding it with the inclusion of Narrative and Storytelling game elements. Thus, the main contribution of this paper is proposing a new, confirmed taxonomy to standardise the terminology used to define the game elements as a mean to design and deploy gamification strategies in the educational domain.