<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Usability Benefits in Gamification</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Mikko Rajanen, Dorina Rajanen Interact Research Unit University of Oulu Finland</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2017</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>9</fpage>
      <lpage>10</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>This paper contrasts the user-centred design with the gamification design framework and proposes a model of usability benefits adapted to gamification. The model is useful for selling the usability activities to management and strategists when developing gamified solutions, services, and software. In this paper, we focus on identifying the benefits since they can be used to legitimise the usability activities in a development project. The user-centred design process focuses on understanding the user, their needs and requirements, and the paper shows that the benefits of this approach transcends the user dimension and reaches towards the developing organization by providing competitive advantage and reduced developing costs.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Gamification</kwd>
        <kwd>Usability cost-benefit analysis</kwd>
        <kwd>User-centred design</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Gamification is an umbrella term for the use of video-game elements in non-gaming systems to
improve user experience and user engagement
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Deterding et al., 2011)</xref>
        . Gamification as a concept has
existed for quite a long time (see e.g., Malone, 1980). In academic context, gamification has been
raising as an important topic of research starting with the paper of Detering and colleagues at CHI
2011. Gamification has been explored in many study contexts and has been assigned different goals
such as: raising engagement in education (Muntean, 2011), helping usability work to find usability
issues (Saha, Manna &amp; Geetha, 2012), and improving risk management in an enterprise
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">(Bajdor &amp;
Dragolea, 2011)</xref>
        . The design of gamification involves introducing game-design elements into the
software development (SD) context. Creating a highly engaging, full-blown gamified system is
difficult, time consuming and costly (Kapp, 2012). However, gamification has not been discussed from
the point of view of usability strategy and usability cost-benefit analysis; this paper fills this gap in the
literature by focusing on the positive impact that usability has on developing and using gamified
systems.
      </p>
      <p>
        Strategic usability is adopted by organizations that aim to integrate usability engineering in the
organizational processes, culture, and product development by utilizing usability data to make
decisions about products (Rosenbaum, Rohn, &amp; Humburg, 2000). Usability cost-benefit analysis
represents one tool used by such organizations to understand the impact of usability activities and
prioritize them
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">(see e.g., Bias &amp; Mayhew, 2005)</xref>
        . Usability benefits and costs for organizations started
to become officially recognized recently with the proposal of including an organizational perspective to
usability in the forthcoming revision of the ISO 9241-11 standard
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(see Bevan, Carter, &amp; Harker, 2015)</xref>
        .
This revision will acknowledges that usability can overcome potential risks and negative outcomes of
inappropriate interaction with a product, system, or service
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(see Bevan et al., 2015)</xref>
        . However, a survey
of usability and user experience professionals in 2016 (Rajanen et al., 2017) revealed that
organizational usability defined as “the match between the product and the organization adopting it”
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">(Elliot &amp; Kling, 1996)</xref>
        is not widely adopted by usability practitioners, but it starts to be recognized.
Most of the research on usability cost-benefit analysis is found in relation to traditional software
development context
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">(see Rajanen, 2011; Aydin, 2014)</xref>
        as well as in specific domains such as web
development context
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">(see Bias &amp; Mayhew, 2005)</xref>
        and OSS development context (Rajanen, 2011), but
there is a lack of studies on usability benefits in the context of gamification. Nevertheless, a survey
among North-European game companies showed that usability and user-centred design are considered
important for most of the companies in designing and developing games that are fun and engaging
(Rajanen &amp; Nissinen, 2015). It is noteworthy that proportionally more of the small game companies
responding to the survey, when compared to the large companies, reported lacking knowledge of the
usability methodologies and benefits (Rajanen &amp; Nissinen, 2015).
The aim of the paper is to clarify the benefits that usability brings to gamification. To this end, we
analyse the gamification design framework through the lenses of user-centred design methodology.
This study uses the conceptual-analytic approach (Järvinen 2001, p. 17) to integrate the two design
frameworks (gamification and user-centeredness) and identify the role of usability methods, models,
and measurements in providing gamified systems that fulfil the needs of businesses and end-users. As a
result, the paper proposes a model of usability benefits adapted to gamification. The model is useful for
selling the usability activities to management and strategists when developing gamified solutions,
services, and software. The paper shows that the benefits of the user-centred approach in gamification
transcends the user dimension and reaches towards the developing organization by providing
competitive advantage and reduced developing costs.
      </p>
      <p>The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes usability and the user-centred design approach.
Section 3 introduces the usability cost-benefit analysis models and summarizes the usability benefits to
development organizations as well as to customers and end-users. Section 4 analyses the gamification
design through the lenses of user-centred design. Section 5 proposes a model of usability benefits in
gamification, discusses implications and future work, and concludes the paper.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Usability and User-Centred Design</title>
      <p>Usability is defined in the ISO standard of human-centred design as being “the extent to which a
product, system, or service can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness,
efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use” (ISO 9241-210, 2010). Usability has been
recognized in literature as a crucial factor for the success of interactive systems and products (Maguire,
2001). Among the benefits of usability for the users and vendors, the following have been identified:
increased user productivity, reduced user errors, reduced user learning effort, reduced service and
support, increased acceptance, and increased reputation (Maguire 2001).</p>
      <p>Human-centred design or user-centred design is a development approach that ensures developing
systems with optimal usability. Rogers et al. (2011) point out that user-centred design involves creating
alternative design solutions and evaluating them. ISO 9241-210 (2010) is the international standard that
provides practical guidelines for achieving maximum usability in the system development process. The
standard clarifies the role of iteration in the whole design process (not just evaluation); emphasizes that
human-centred methods can be used throughout the system life cycle; explains the design activities;
and clarifies the principles of human-centred design (ISO 9241-210, 2010). According to ISO
9241210, human-centred design focuses on the users, their needs and requirements, and applies human
factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques. The design activities specified in ISO
9241-210 are: 1) understand and specify organizational requirements; 2) understand and specify
context of use; 3) produce design solutions; 4) evaluate design against requirements. These are
iterative, meaning that they are refined and cycled until the results are satisfactory.</p>
      <p>
        Usability has been an important competitive edge in maturing software markets for decades
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">(Grudin,
1991; Nielsen, 1993; Rosson and Carrol, 2002)</xref>
        . However, bringing usability into the software
development life cycle has been a challenge for an equally long time (see Ohnemus, 1996; Rajanen &amp;
Iivari, 2007). One reason for this is that the benefits of better usability are not easily identified or
calculated (see Karat, 1994; Rajanen &amp; Iivari, 2007; Rajanen, 2011). Usability teams in software
development organizations have always been competing for resources against other software
development project groups, who have objective cost-benefit data readily available (Karat, 1994). For
clarifying and communicating the cost-benefits to management and other stakeholders, a series of
models called usability cost-benefit analysis models, aim to tackle the problem of estimating the costs
and benefits of the usability work required to achieve better usability
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4 ref8 ref9">(see Donahue, 2001; Bevan,
2000; Ehrlich &amp; Rohn, 1994; Karat, 1994; Mayhew &amp; Mantei, 1994; Rajanen &amp; Jokela, 2004; Rajanen,
2006)</xref>
        .
      </p>
      <p>
        Over the years, the concept of usability was extended to incorporate the concept of user experience
(UX) which reflects the subjective feeling and assessment of the individual towards the product,
system, or service in use. User experience focuses on the preferences, perceptions, emotions and
physical and psychological responses of the users during the use of an interactive product, as well as
before and after use
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(Bevan et al., 2015)</xref>
        , and it is typically associated with the satisfaction dimension
of usability
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(Bevan et al., 2015)</xref>
        .
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. Usability Cost-Benefit Analysis</title>
      <p>Cost-benefit analysis is a method for assessing the projects from the investment point of view (Karat,
1994). This method involves making investment decisions by comparing the estimated costs and
benefits of the planned actions based on collected and analysed data regarding technological and
financial aspects of the projects. As a result, the management concentrates the available resources in
the most useful way on such planned activities that have low costs and potentially high benefits
(Rajanen, 2011). The usability cost-benefit analysis is in practice conducted in the planning phase of a
development project (Maguire, 2001). While there are many different cost-benefit analysis models for
different contexts, there are still relatively few published models for analysing the costs and benefits of
usability work in the company software development context (Rajanen, 2011).</p>
      <p>
        Generally, the five most popular models of usability cost-benefit analysis differ by the focus and
perspective they adopt. Mayhew et al. (1994) focuses on the benefits that are of most interest to the
audience of the analysis.
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">Ehrlich et al. (1994)</xref>
        focuses on the benefits of usability from the viewpoint of
the vendor company, corporate customer, and end user. Karat (1994) analyses the usability benefits
through cost-benefit calculation of human factors work.
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">Donahue (2001)</xref>
        divides the focus between the
costs for the development organization and the benefits for the customer organization.
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">Bevan (2000)</xref>
        analyses the benefits of usability to the development organization during different phases:
development, sales, use, and support. According to these models, the potential benefits of better
usability can be divided in two categories: benefits in the development context and benefits in the use
context (see Table 1).
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. User-Centred Design in the Gamification Context</title>
      <p>In this section, we contrast the user-centred design activities with the six-step gamification design
framework by Werbach &amp; Hunter (2012): 1) Define business objectives; 2) Delineate target
behaviours; 3) Describe your players; 4) Device activity loops; 5) Don’t forget the fun; and 6) Deploy
the appropriate tools.</p>
      <p>
        We selected the framework by Werbach &amp; Hunters (2012) because it is a widely cited gamification
design framework and the conceptualization of gamification by Werbach &amp; Hunters (2012) is similar
to other seminal gamification frameworks such as
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">Deterding et al. (2011)</xref>
        (see Seaborn &amp; Fels, 2015).
Moreover, Werbach &amp; Hunters’ (2012) framework has a business orientation; it views gamification as
beneficial to an organization or goal (such as education) by creating and maintaining intrinsic
motivation of users to achieve desired target behaviours through the play of a well-designed game.
Thus, this framework fits with our aim to identify business and end-user benefits of usability and
usercentred design.
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>4.1 Define Business Objectives</title>
        <p>Gamification Design: For gamification to work it is critical to have a good understanding of the goals
of the intended gamified system. After that the system is created to specifically address those goals
(Werbach &amp; Hunter, 2012: 87). The business goals or objectives define the purposes for which the
systems are designed (e.g., an educational tool for learning in a school setting, or a tool for simulating a
business process in a company).</p>
        <p>User-Centred Design: The user-centred design process starts with a planning and scoping phase
(Maguire, 2001) where all project stakeholders are invited to define the scope of the system and plan
how usability is addressed through the project. The next phase, defining the context of use, involves
defining in detail all aspects of use of the system: users, tasks, environment, etc. These two phases
produce the organizational and user requirements and the use contexts. A large variety of UCD
methods can be applied in order to increase understanding of needs and motivations of all stakeholders
involved (e.g., focus groups, task analysis, feedback methodologies).</p>
        <p>Benefits for gamification: In gamification, the developers are better provided with information and
insights about the characteristics of their customers, end users, and their player types which help in
identifying and defining the business objectives. Failure to identify, understand, and define the business
objectives may lead to designing and developing a system that does not reach its full potential; also the
development project may be stopped by the upper management if the identified business objectives do
not justify the development costs.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>4.2 Delineate Target Behaviours</title>
        <p>Gamification Design: When designing and developing gamified systems, it is important to define
what the designer wants the users to achieve and how to measure that behaviour. The target behaviour
should be as specific as possible in order to measure and evaluate the behaviour. Werbach &amp; Hunter
(2012: 89-90) propose two metrics to measure the target behaviour: points and win states. They do not
however specify the ways how to actually motivate users to perform the target behaviour, only how to
track it.</p>
        <p>User-Centred Design: During the user-centred design process, the target behaviours are iteratively
defined when clarifying the context, and then are designed and evaluated. The design solution space is
large and usability methods provide the means to select among competing solutions. A large variety of
usability methods (from high-level emotion and cognitive self-reports to low-level psychophysiological
measurements) can be employed to improve and evaluate design solutions (Kuniaysky, 2003;
Kivikangas et al., 2011).</p>
        <p>Benefits for gamification: In gamification, user-centred design and usability methods help designers
to design and evaluate alternative target behaviours and choose the optimal ones for development and
implementation. Failures to identify, define, evaluate, and select the target behaviours may lead to
designing and developing a system that does fit the requirements.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-3">
        <title>4.3 Describe Your Players</title>
        <p>
          Gamification Design: Because the players are the users of the gamified system, it is important to
describe the players’ characteristics. Moreover, different player types have different personal
preferences and styles of playing, thus knowing the typologies of the players and their characteristics
ensures that the system has maximum appeal to them (Werbach &amp; Hunter, 2012: 91-93).
User-Centred Design: User-centred design focuses strongly on understanding users and their
characteristics by dedicating a phase in the design addressing the context of use. Usability methods
addressing personality, psychology, and behavioural phenomena
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Deterding et al., 2011)</xref>
          contribute to
defining all relevant dimensions of users in the context of system use and creating personas as user
representatives to use during design and development. One of the most well-known classification of
players’ characteristics is the Bartle classification of video game players
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">(Bartle, 1996)</xref>
          , which has also
been further adapted into gamification context (Marczewski, 2013).
        </p>
        <p>Benefits for gamification: In gamification, user-centred design can be used to create personas as
representative players and to understand players’ profiles and their implications to the game use.
Failure to identify and understand the players may lead to designing and developing a system that does
not appeal to the users; in the worst case, the users reject the system altogether because they feel it is
incompatible with them.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-4">
        <title>4.4 Device Activity Loops</title>
        <p>Gamification Design: Activity loops move the action in a gamified system forward and they structure
the core gameplay aspects. The concept of activity loops is that an action provokes another action,
which again provokes another action. There are two different categories of activity loops: engagement
loops and progression loops. Engagement loops describe what the players do, why they do it, and what
the system does in response. It is important to give immediate feedback to the user and with that
motivate him/her to perform another action. The goal of the engagement loop design is that users
always know when they do something good and get immediate feedback to prove it. Still, it is not
enough to get just feedback, because feedback alone will not tell the user whether he/she is advancing
or not. Because of this, progression loops are needed. Progression loops can give perspective on the
player's journey on a macro level. The player experience with the system should not be the same on the
first use and later after a month of use. If the experience stays the same over time the user might get
bored and not motivated to use the system again. Progression loops give the impression that the
experience changes as users move through it. That is usually achieved with escalating levels of
challenge and difficulty. The difficulty to win different kinds of challenges should increase to match
the increased ability of the user. (Werbach &amp; Hunter, 2012: 94-97).</p>
        <p>
          User-Centred Design: Usability and UX methods at the evaluation phase
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">(in particular, usability
testing and psychophysiological measurements; Diah et al., 2010; Kivikangas et al., 2011)</xref>
          give the
developers valuable feedback on how the actual users actually respond to system.
        </p>
        <p>Benefits for gamification: In gamification, the usability and UX methods at this evaluative step help
developers to assess and tailor the progression and engagement activity loops for the target players.
Failure to identify problems in the design loops decrease or ruin the player experience and may result
in user frustration, boredom, or confusion, lack of appropriate feedback from the system, and lack of
motivation and flow.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-5">
        <title>4.5 Don’t Forget the Fun</title>
        <p>Gamification Design: Fun is in the core of games and gamification. The fundamental goal of
gamification is to create systems that are more fun and more engaging by gamifying them. Because of
this goal it is very important that using the system is ultimately fun and the player has a positive
experience, otherwise it does not matter how well it should theoretically work. This is where testing
and the overall user experience are important. When creating a gamified system it is easy to forget that
it is all about fun. (Werbach &amp; Hunter, 2012: 98-99).</p>
        <p>User-Centred Design: Fun and enjoyment have been considered in human-computer interaction
development since its inception (e.g., Malone, 1984). Though not always as front-runners, nowadays
emotion and enjoyment become a common place when discussing user experience and usability.
Usability methods, such as game heuristic evaluation lists, usability testing, focus groups, and
psychophysiological measurements, are employed during the design and development process to find
and fix all the usability, user interface, and gameplay issues that would unintentionally come between
the player and the fun.</p>
        <p>Benefits for gamification: The usability and UX methods in this step of gamification help finding and
fixing fun-breaking issues. Failure to identify usability issues that break the flow and fun from the
player will make the gamified system less fun than it could be, and will have a negative impact on the
player attitude. Furthermore, the designers should also take into account the more subjective user
experience aspect when designing gamification in addition to the more objective usability aspects.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-6">
        <title>4.6 Deploy the Appropriate Tools</title>
        <p>Gamification Design: After the previous steps have been successfully accomplished, developers apply
the most relevant and effective elements and structures into the system. Not any combination of the
elements or structures ensures a system that has the target effects. According to Werbach &amp; Hunter
(2012: 99-101), successful games require a certain combination of right gamification elements and
structures.</p>
        <p>User-Centred Design: During the user-centred design process, several design solutions are proposed
and evaluated (Rogers et al., 2011). Since the process is centred on the user, the technical aspects of the
system are adapted to the user and his/her context and target behaviour from the start. Moreover, the
evaluation of usability and UX throughout the process cycle ensures that the system conforms to the
stated requirements.</p>
        <p>Benefits for gamification: Applying the user-centred design principles and activities throughout the
gamification design process ensures that developers select the best tools, design elements, and
structures and combine them in a system that is appropriate and serves the business objectives and
player engagement and progression to the maximum effect. This results in reaching the business
objectives of the system and keeping the players engaged and satisfied. Failure to evaluate, improve
and verify the combination of gamification elements and structures may lead to system not reaching its
full potential (business objectives, target behaviours, activity loops, and /or the fun of the game).</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. Discussion and Conclusions</title>
      <p>We summarize in Table 2 the analysis of the gamification process through the user-centred design
lenses by proposing a model of usability benefits in gamification.</p>
      <p>Reduced development costs
- The design and development is
iterative and incremental making sure
that the critical issues of target
behaviours, players profiles, activity
loops for player engagement and
motivation, fun of the game, and
deployment solutions are well tested
before implementation, thus resulting
in less need for later costly changes.</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>Reduced training and support costs</title>
        <p>- The result game is tailored and
adapted to the players and not vice
versa, by understanding, knowing and
modelling the target players.</p>
        <p>Reduced errors
- Game is designed according to
usability requirements for ease of
use, effectiveness, and efficiency, as
well as UX requirements of
subjective experience with respect to
the target behaviour and business
objectives.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>Reduced training time and learning effort - The activity loops for progression and engagement are designed by continuously involving the users.</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-3">
        <title>Increased acceptance and reputation</title>
        <p>- The potential customers and end-users
are adopting the game and provide
positive feedback though different
channels.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-4">
        <title>Increased (customer and user) satisfaction</title>
        <p>- The potential customers and
endusers are adopting the game and
provide positive feedback through
different channels.</p>
        <p>This paper fills a gap in the literature of gamification by highlighting the strategic role of usability and
user-centred design in the development of gamified systems. Maguire (2001) identified that usability
cost-benefit analysis is an activity that in practice takes place at the start of a project, namely, in the
planning phase, in order to determine stakeholders to dedicate resources and define the scope of the
project from the user and customer point of view. In this paper, we focused on identifying the benefits
since they can be used to legitimise the usability activities in the development project. The user-centred
design process focuses on understanding the user, their needs and requirements, and the paper shows
that the benefits of this approach transcend the user dimension and reaches towards the developing
organization by providing competitive advantage and reduced developing costs.</p>
        <p>This paper contributes to the theory by exploring, contrasting and modifying the usability benefits
identified in productivity software development context to categorize and fit these usability benefits
into the gamification software development context. The results from this research indicate that it is
possible to fit the usability benefits into the gamification context to identify how gamification benefits
from usability in gamification development context and in gamification use context. Furthermore, this
paper highlights the importance of good usability and the use of usability methods and user-centred
design process when developing gamified solutions, since problems in usability could have serious
impact in the critical issues in gamification design and development, and ultimately, if the business
objectives are reached or not.</p>
        <p>The results of this paper can be utilized by gamification practitioners (e.g., managers, usability
specialists, and developers of gamification) to motivate and justify the usability activities, and the
resources needed for them. Furthermore, usability benefit analysis researchers can use the gamification
usability benefit framework as systematic criteria to further develop better usability cost-benefit
analysis models in general as well as developing further specific usability cost-benefit models tailored
to gamification development context. Also, the findings of this paper can be utilized by gamification
researchers to further analyse and develop models on the relationship between gamification, usability,
user experience, and service design.</p>
        <p>With regard to future areas of research, one future area of study is to evaluate the proposed model of
usability benefits in gamification in real-world contexts, in companies or education settings. This
evaluation could be carried out as an exploratory case study in a gamification software organization, or
as a survey among gamification companies, as well as among end-users or beneficiary organizations of
gamified solutions. Furthermore, another future area of research is to expand the proposed gamification
usability benefits model to explicitly take into account different aspects of usability such as
effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, safety, user experience, as well as to integrate the model into the
service design perspective, and map usability and UX methods onto the model.
ISO 9241-11 (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)
Part 11: Guidance on usability. Geneva, CH: International Standard Organization.</p>
        <p>ISO 9241-210 (2010). Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-centred design for
interactive systems. International Standardization Organization (ISO).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-5">
        <title>Järvinen, P. (2001) On Research Methods. Opinpajan Kirja, Tampere.</title>
        <p>Kapp, K. (2012) Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. T+ D, 66(6), 64-68.
Karat, C-M. (1994) A Business Case Approach to Usability Cost Justification. In Bias, R., Mayhew, D.
(eds.): Cost-Justifying Usability. Academic Press, 45-70.</p>
        <p>Kivikangas, J. M., Chanel, G., Cowley, B., Ekman, I., Salminen, M., Järvelä, S., &amp; Ravaja, N. (2011).
A review of the use of psychophysiological methods in game research. Journal of Gaming &amp; Virtual
Worlds, 3(3).</p>
        <p>Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience: a practitioner's guide to user research. Morgan
Kaufmann.</p>
        <p>Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International journal of
humancomputer studies, 55(4), 587-634.</p>
        <p>Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer
games. In Proc. of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium on Small systems (162-169). ACM.
Malone, T. W. (1984). Heuristics for Designing Enjoyable User Interfaces: Lessons from Computer
Games. In Human Factors in Computer Systems. p. 1-12. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Intellect Books.
Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: a simple introduction. Andrzej Marczewski.
Mayhew, D. &amp; Mantei, M. (1994) A Basic Framework for Cost-Justifying Usability Engineering. In
Bias, R., Mayhew, D. (eds.): Cost-Justifying Usability. Academic Press, 9-43.</p>
        <p>Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL (323-329).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-6">
        <title>Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability engineering. Academic Press, Boston</title>
        <p>Ohnemus, K. (1996) Incorporating Human Factors in the System Development Life Cycle: Marketing
and Management Approaches. In IEEE IPCC96, 46-53
Rajanen, D., Clemmenson, T., Iivari, N., Inal, Y., Rızvanoğlu, K., Sivaji, A., &amp; Roche, A. (2017) UX
professionals’ definitions of usability and UX – A comparison between Turkey, Finland, Denmark,
France and Malaysia. In Proc. of the 16th IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction - INTERACT 2017. (Forthcoming).</p>
        <p>Rajanen, M. (2006) Different Approaches to Usability Cost-Benefit Analysis. In proceedings of 13th
European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation (ECITE 2006), Genoa, Italy.
Rajanen, M. (2011) Applying Usability Cost-Benefit Analysis - Explorations in Commercial and Open
Source Software Development Contexts. PhD Dissertation. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Series A 587.
University of Oulu. http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789514296871
Rajanen, M. &amp; Iivari, N. (2007). Usability Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Usability Became a Curse
Word?. In Proceedings of the INTERACT 2007. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. DOI:
10.1007/978-3-54074800-7_47.</p>
        <p>Rajanen, M. &amp; Jokela, T. (2004) Analysis of Usability Cost-Benefit Models. In proceedings of the 12th
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2004), Turku, Finland.
Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J. A., &amp; Humburg, J. (2000). A toolkit for strategic usability: results from
workshops, panels, and surveys. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 337-344). ACM.</p>
        <p>Rosson, M. &amp; Carroll, J. (2002) Usability Engineering: Scenario-based Development of
HumanComputer Interaction. Morgan-Kaufman, San Francisco
Saha, R., Manna, R., &amp; Geetha, G. (2012). CAPTCHINO-A Gamification of Image-based CAPTCHAs
to Evaluate Usability Issues. In Computing Sciences (ICCS), 2012 International Conference on (95-99).
IEEE.</p>
        <p>Seaborn, K., &amp; Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.</p>
        <p>Werbach, K., &amp; Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business.
Wharton Digital Press.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Aydin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Development of a decision tool for cost justification of usability (Doctoral dissertation</article-title>
          , Texas Tech University).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bajdor</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dragolea</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
          <article-title>The gamification as a tool to improve risk management in the enterprise</article-title>
          .
          <source>Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica</source>
          ,
          <volume>13</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bartle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1996</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of MUD research</source>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>19</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bevan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2000</year>
          )
          <article-title>Cost Benefit Analysis version 1.1</article-title>
          .
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Trial</given-names>
            <surname>Usability Maturity Process. Serco Bevan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Carter</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            , &amp;
            <surname>Harker</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>S.</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ).
          <article-title>ISO 9241-11 revised: What have we learnt about usability since 1998?</article-title>
          . In International Conference on Human-Computer
          <string-name>
            <surname>Interaction</surname>
          </string-name>
          (pp.
          <fpage>143</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>151</lpage>
          ). Springer International Publishing.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bias</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R. G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mayhew</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D. J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          . (Eds.). (
          <year>2005</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Cost-justifying usability: An update for the Internet age</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Deterding</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sicart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nacke</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>O'Hara</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dixon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Gamification: using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts</article-title>
          .
          <source>In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts. on Human Factors in Computing Systems</source>
          (
          <volume>2425</volume>
          -
          <fpage>2428</fpage>
          ). ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Diah</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ismail</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ahmad</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dahari</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M. K. M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Usability testing for educational computer game using observation method</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Information Retrieval &amp; Knowledge Management (CAMP)</source>
          , 2010 International Conference on (pp.
          <fpage>157</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>161</lpage>
          ). IEEE.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Donahue</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          )
          <article-title>Usability and the Bottom Line</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Software</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>18</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>31</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>37</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ehrlich</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rohn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1994</year>
          )
          <article-title>Cost Justification of Usability Engineering: A Vendor's Perspective</article-title>
          . In: Bias,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Mayhew</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
            . (eds.):
            <surname>Cost-Justifying Usability</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Academic Press,
          <fpage>73</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>110</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Elliott</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kling</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1996</year>
          )
          <article-title>Organizational usability of digital libraries in the courts</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc. of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on, System Sciences (Vol. 5</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>62</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>71</lpage>
          ). IEEE.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Grudin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1991</year>
          )
          <article-title>Systematic Sources of Suboptimal Interface Design in Large Product Development Organizations</article-title>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>Human-Computer</surname>
            <given-names>Interaction</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Vol.
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>147</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>196</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>