Playfulness can be observed in all areas of human activity. It is an attitude of making activities more enjoyable. Designing for playfulness involves creating objects that elicit a playful approach and provide enjoyable experiences. We have designed and evaluated a set of cards called the PLEX Cards and its two related idea generation techniques. The cards were created to communicate the 22 categories of a Playful Experiences framework to designers and other stakeholders who wish to design for playfulness. We have evaluated the practical use of the cards by applying them in several design cases. In this talk I will present an overview of the design rationale of the PLEX Cards together with a couple design cases where the PLEX Cards were used and evaluated.

1. : andrikos
The PLEX Cards and its Techniques as Sources of
Inspiration When Designing for Playfulness
Andrés Lucero
Nokia Research, Tampere, Finland
Warsaw, October 25, 2012

2. Experience Description
Captivation Forgetting one’s surroundings
PLAYFULNESS Challenge
Competition
Completion
Testing abilities in a demanding task
Contest with oneself or an
opponent
Finishing a major task, closure
Control Dominating, commanding, regulating
Cruelty Causing mental or physical pain
Discovery Finding something new or unknown
Eroticism A sexually arousing experience
• Understanding the role of playfulness in the overall user
experience of a product or service
Exploration Investigating an object or situation
Expression Manifesting oneself creatively
Pleasure Framework [Costello et al.]
Fantasy An imagined experience
Fellowship Friendship, communality or intimacy
• Comprehensive framework of 13 categories, which assembles Humor Fun, joy, amusement, jokes, gags
views of philosophers, researchers and game researchers
Nurture Taking care of oneself or others
• Evaluating pleasurable playful interfaces in interactive artworks
Relaxation Relief from bodily or mental work
Sensation Excitement by stimulating senses
Playful Experiences Framework [Korhonen et al.]
Simulation An imitation of everyday life
• Expanded the framework by adding the work of other authors
Submission Being part of a larger structure
Subversion Breaking social rules and norms
• Covers experiences, pleasures, emotions, elements of play and Suffering Experience of loss, frustration, anger
reason why people play
Sympathy Sharing emotional feelings
• Question: can the 22 categories serve as a starting point and Thrill Excitement derived from risk,
danger
provide inspiration to design for playfulness?

3. PLEX CARDS
PLEX Design Sprints
• 3 design sprints using PLEX to guide design exploration
• What is the best way to communicate the PLEX categories?
• Tried different strategies:
• Powerpoint slides with definitions briefly displayed
• Printed A0 poster with the definitions
• Handouts with the definitions plus concrete examples
• PLEX framework difficult to grasp for the participants who only
got an overview of the framework
PLEX Cards
• Physical cards designed to bring PLEX closer to people and
communicate its categories

4. RELATED WORK
Design Cards
• Provide inspiration in user-centered design (UCD) activities
IDEO Cards
• Inspiration Cards [Halskov & Dalsgaard], Video Cards [Buur &
Soendergaard], Moment-Video-Trace Cards [Brandt & Messeter]
• Ideo Cards: 51 cards showing methods used by IDEO to keep
people at the center of their design processes. Invitation for
designers to to try and develop different design approaches.
• PLEX Cards: inspiration source for UCD, communicate PLEX
Design-Game Cards
ThinkCube Cards
• Design games to support idea generation activities
• Commercial: Thinkpak [Michalko] and ThinkCube [Sampanthar]
• VNA and GameSeekers Cards: card decks to generate ideas for
mobile multiplayer games.
• PLEX Cards: we incorporate simple game rules to structure the
innovation process, turn-taking and game dynamics.
VNA Cards

5. CARD DESIGN
First Iteration
• Squared (9x9 cm) cardboard cards (red)
• Known limitation of cards: orientation
• Textual definition
• One image to illustrate the main idea, mostly stock
images
• Game-related content: GTAIV, SIMS, Guitar Hero
Evaluation
• Social and Spatial Interactions workshop
• 8 participants used the cards in pairs
• Problems with cards that contained contents
people could not relate to: specific games,
applications or TV series
• Examples: fog of war (‘exploration’), Sports Tracker
(‘challenge’), 24 (‘captivation’)

6. CARD DESIGN
Second Iteration
• Similar shape and size (blue), category name
• 14 circular definitions rewritten
• Image content changed so people would be able to
relate to the content
• Introduced images that could suggest interactions
• Example: Rubik cube to suggest twisting or rotating
Evaluation
• Preparation EmoListen workshop (HIIT researchers)
• 14 participants discussed the cards in two groups
• Problems with images that have strong
connotations (Usain Bolt for ‘challenge’)
• Suggestions: don’t limit the content to games, rely
on people’s experiences / avoid images that over-
specify the design / try a booklet or using the flip
side of the card

7. CARD DESIGN
Third Iteration
• Rectangular format (9x12 cm), color orange
• Introduced a second image to play with the
abstraction level of the images and the contents
• Image content changed so people would be able to
relate to the content
• 27 new images, most depicting human emotions or
activities
Evaluation
• EmoListen workshop (HIIT researchers)
• 11 participants, cards used individually and in pairs
• Positive, two images provides more possibilities to
connect to the content
• Problems with some definitions and images
(‘Humor’)

8. CARD DESIGN
Fourth Iteration
• Maintained the shape and size (cyan)
• Modified some images that were “stereotypical and
uninspiring”
• Stock images: they contain a polished set of
presuppositions and prejudices
• More natural images from Flickr under a Creative
Commons license
Lucero, A., and Arrasvuori, J. 2010. PLEX Cards: a source of
inspiration when designing for playfulness. In Proc. of Fun and
Games 2010. ACM Press, 28-37.

9. FINAL DESIGN
Fifth and Final Iteration
• Same shape and size (magenta)
• Top Half: Human emotions in an abstract way, in
black and white to help focus on the emotion
• Bottom Half: Concrete everyday life examples, color
pictures of hands to suggest possible interactions
• 22 PLEX Cards: 2 extra cards explaining the PLEX
Brainstorming and PLEX Scenario techniques
Evaluation
• Social and Spatial Interactions project: 14 Mobile Life
and Nokia researchers with mixed background
• Emokeitai workshop: 13 participants from HIIT,
Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki and Aalto U.
• Structured use of the cards in pairs, using both the
PLEX Brainstorming and Scenario techniques
• Participants rated the cards on 7-point Likert scale
(-3 to +3) on general impression and helpfulness

10. FINDINGS
Quantitative
Qualitative
• Jointly calculated the mean ratings and standard • Positive comments on the cards' role in supporting
deviations for both sessions (n=27)
idea generation and guiding thinking about playfulness:
• General impression of the cards: was clearly positive • "The cards did kind of focus my usually chaotic
(mean=1.37, SD=1.04)
brainstorming." (P24)
• Helpfulness of the cards: ranged between 0.67 and • Controversial cards helped participants think in
1.88, except Competition, Eroticism, Relaxation, Simulation
unconventional ways about playfulness:
• Some categories are good at triggering people but can • "The cards helped trigger ideas that may not have come
otherwise. E.g. on otherwise sensitive topics such as
in other cases block participants
eroticism, suffering..." (P3)
3
Helpfulness of the PLEX Cards
2
1
Mean Ra$ngs
0
pr n
Hu
n
e
n
n
n
l
Cr l
Nu r
bm n
o$
Di lty
y
ip
on
on
Re ure
on
Su sion
Sy ing
m
y
Fe asy
ril
ro
o
ng
er
$o
o
sio
$o
sio
th
o
sh
cis
m
a$
a$
$$
e$
a$
Th
ue
nt
r
ov
rt
nt
pa
le
‐1
ffe
va
xa
w
is
es
er
Co
or
ns
pl
ul
pe
al
Fa
sc
m
llo
bv
la
p$
Su
m
m
Ch
Er
pl
Se
m
Ex
Su
Ca
Co
Si
Ex
Co
‐2
‐3
Mean 1.63 1.13 ‐1.00 1.10 1.20 1.50 1.88 0.67 1.53 1.14 1.18 1.71 1.70 1.38 0.75 0.89 1.00 0.90 1.07 1.21 1.29 1.50
SD 1.41 1.64 0 1.52 1.14 .71 .99 2.07 1.46 1.35 1.47 1.05 .82 1.19 1.91 1.05 1.58 1.45 1.33 1.42 .91 1.24
N 8 8 4 10 10 2 17 6 15 14 17 17 10 8 8 9 5 10 14 14 14 12
22 PLEX Categories

11. PLEX CARDS TECHNIQUES

12. PLEX TECHNIQUE 1
PLEX Brainstorming
• Aimed at rapidly generating several ideas
• Participants split in pairs, each pair takes a deck of cards
• 1 card randomly drawn per pair and put face up: seed card
• Both players take 3 extra cards each from the deck. Do
not show the cards to each other.
Rules
• Player 1: start exploring an idea using the seed card and
explain the idea to Player 2
• Player 2: listen and consider the cards in your hand.
Elaborate on the idea by placing one new card from your
hand on the table.
• Player 1: develop the idea further by placing a new card
from your hand on the table

13. PLEX TECHNIQUE 2
PLEX Scenario
• Aimed at generating more elaborate ideas
• Participants split in pairs, each pair takes a deck of cards
• 3 cards randomly drawn per pair from the deck and put
face up on the table
• Using an A3 template participants create a scenario
• The order of the cards can be altered
Rules
• Card 1: use card to trigger a use story or action
• Card 2: steer the story in a new direction
Card 1: Card 2: Card 3:
Beginning Continuation The End
• Card 3: bring the story to a close
Who are the people in the How does this category How does this category
• Alternative: randomly draw seven cards and use three of story? How does this
category launch the story?
cause the story to continue
in a new direction?
bring the story to a
close?
them for the scenario

14. EVALUATION
Goal
• Investigate the usefulness of the two proposed techniques
Participants
• The same 14 Mobile Life and Nokia researchers from the Social
and Spatial Interactions project
Procedure
• Participants split in pairs
• Four pairs started with PLEX Brainstorming and spent 30
minutes on two rounds of idea generation, while the other
three pairs started with PLEX Scenario, then switched
• Participants asked to fill-in a questionnaire on their general
impression after using each on a 7-point Likert scale (where -3
is very negative and +3 is very positive)

15. FINDINGS
Quantitative
Qualitative
• Participants were positive about both techniques with • Those who preferred Scenario often mentioned the
a slight preference for PLEX Scenario (mean=1.43, structured approach better suited their way of thinking:
SD=1.45) over PLEX Brainstorming (mean=1.36 • "Scenario adds a twist to the thinking. Playfulness derives
SD=1.15)
mostly (from) the combinations and arrangements. The
• Only two participants rated the techniques negatively structure is very important." (P8)
by giving them -1 or -2
• Those who preferred Brainstorming felt the technique
was faster and more flexible:
• "In Scenario, the first card formed most of the idea. We used
(the technique) pretty linearly, I think it would be useful to
jump back and forth (between the picked PLEX categories)
a bit more." (P10)

16. QUESTIONS?
Andrés Lucero - Nokia Research Center, Tampere, Finland
andres.lucero@nokia.com
: andrikos