We began with a literature survey and researched similar existing games. We took a more in-depth look into spelling bee and geography bee in particular, to get a sense of their format and flow. Several scenarios were generated as potential formats, applications, and environments for the meaning bee game. The format of our meaning bee game will be similar to that of a spelling bee or a geography bee in that participants will be asked questions and they will have to provide answers. The way meaning bee distinguishes itself from similar existing games is that choices are not given. The participant will have to write the answer from scratch. We believe this way, participants will learn more from the game. In addition, future work of this game can include ways of giving participants more points if they write a more explanatory definition.
As an experiment, we ran a pilot study to see people’s reactions towards the game and what kind of answers they gave to our questions. We tested our idea on a total of 11 people, in small groups of 2-3 people. The goal of this experiment was to make sure our game was both understandable and fun for the contestants. This first prototype of the game took the form of a powerpoint slideshow. In the experiment, we acted as the moderator and flipped through the slides.
From there, we began to visualize the interface of the game through some initial wireframing. We created the wireframes for the single player mode, cooperative mode, and competitive mode, but eventually decided to stick with a simple simple player mode of the game to start with.
After finalizing the wireframes, we went through several iterations of the interface. We mainly focused on designing the interface for the judging process and the accounts page. Initially, for the judging page, we displayed each definition and had people mark it as “correct” or “incorrect”. After feedback from testing, we decided to create buckets for people to drag definitions to, so that we can find out how people phrase the same definition differently. Our buckets included each correct definition, “incorrect”, “unsure”, and “correct definition but not in list”. Our next iteration mainly focused on the interaction when the user drags and drops the definition. Our first version of the dragging and dropping interaction included dragging the user’s definition on top of the correct definition, removing the user’s definition, and adding a “1” next to the correct definition. This allows the user to click the “1” beside the list of correct definitions and see which definition was dragged there. After some discussion, we felt we should simplify the design to make the interaction more intuitive. We came up with several alternatives, including just matching the definitions with arrows and having boxes for each definition and dragging it into the boxes. In the end, we decided to use arrows to match the definitions and rearranging it based on position so the arrows look cleaner.
Another main design that we added is the objections page, where the user can object to the judging result if the user thinks that the results were unfair. We included an objection button beside each result and also a list of pending and processed objections in the accounts page.
UX Designer: Gina Huang, Weikun Liang
Advisors: Alex, Rudnicky, Anthony Tomasic
Duration: 2 Months