See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234775714

FUN

Article in ACM SIGCHI Bulletin · January 1988

DOI: 10.1145/49108.1045604

CITATIONS READS
119 1,493

2 authors, including:

John M. Carroll
Pennsylvania State University
793 PUBLICATIONS 30,917 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John M. Carroll on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FU N
JOHN NI . CARROL L
JOHN C . THOMA S
We are in many ways just getting started on the proble m
of developing a set of concepts and a vocabulary fo r
describing the quality of software and in particular its
usability. Consider : easy to use, easy to learn, use r
friendly, productive, fun . How do these, and other terms
used to describe software differ ; how do they overlap? In
this paper, we examine the confusion between being fun
and being easy, as these terms are applied to end-use r
software and systems . This confusion is interesting in
that we can ask how such a circumstance might have eve r
occurred . It is challenging in that we need to separately
clarify the concepts of ease and fun, if they are to provid e
us any analytical leverage in understanding softwar e
quality .
THE CONFUSION BETWEEN FUN AND EAS E
When the ascription easy is applied to a system or some
software, for example, in a trade press review, wha t
exactly is being alleged? Invocation of the term easy i s
rarely based on any real measurement of the behavior of
humans actually using the system or software . Peopl e
who call software easy have rarely spent the time makin g
the usability measurements and observations that migh t
seriously sustain this judgment . They don't really kno w
whether the software is easy or not in any technical sense .
But whatever it is that they are basing their judgments o n
is still of interest, for often these judgments express a
consensus view .
An example of what we have in mind can be found in th e
story of the Lisa system . During its lifetime (1983-1985 )
Lisa was widely labeled as a breakthrough in ease—eas e
of use and ease of learning . However, a laboratory stud y
of professionals learning to use Lisa revealed that in fact
SIGCHI Bulletin
the system was probably no easier than other more
conventional systems of that period (Carroll and Mazur ,
1986) . The learning problems were different in som e
respects to be sure, but there were plenty of them .
Nevertheless, judging from the popular and trade pres s
reviews and the impacts on later system interface designs,
people really liked the Lisa-style interface, and that i s
very important . We suggest that the Lisa is in fact a n
example of a system that was relatively more fun ,
although not necessarily more easy to learn and use .
What is the relationship between ease and fun? For us ,
ease fundamentally implies simplicity . Things that are
easy are learned quickly, with few steps and few errors .
They can be communicated to others with few words an d
performed fluently . Fun not only fails to carry thi s
monolithic implication of simplicity, but ofte n
contradicts it (e .g., learning to operate a new foo d
processor or to hit curve balls) . Paradigmatic example s
offun indeed must have sufficient complexity or they fal l
flat (jokes that are too obvious, games that are no t
challenging) . The complexity must appear warranted t o
the person (tacking on ad hoc complications will no t
evoke fun) . It seems that things are fun when we expec t
them to be of moderate complexity (interesting bu t
tractable) and then in fact find them to be so (i .e ., not
too difficult or too easy) .
We admit, however, that there are complications inheren t
in splitting fun from ease . To begin with, it does see m
that there can be tangling attributions involving both .
Thus, if the experience of learning to use a particula r
piece of software is fun (because it has been structure d
into a training game, for example), one might also come
21 January 1988 Volume 19 Number 3
to believe that the learning was easy in the sense that i t
required relatively less discipline, teeth grinding, etc . t o
accomplish . Conversely, if learning to use a piece of
software is easy (i .e ., takes very little time, very fe w
steps), then one might similarly come to believe that th e
learning was fun in the sense that it was relativel y
pleasant compared with other software learning
experiences(!) .
But even aside from tangling attributions, there ar e
plausible causal connections between ease and fun . If a
system is more fun, it stands to reason that it will be used
more, which could have the effect of promoting mor e
thorough learning, which in turn would make it easier t o
use at least in the long term . This scenario makes th e
problem begin to seem like asking whether the chicke n
caused the egg or the reverse . The difficulties in splittin g
ease and fun are complemented by the psychological
mechanism of "cognitive consistency" (Festinger, 1957),
the tendency for people to rationalize all their belief s
into a simple and highly consistent framework . The drive
for cognitive consistency encourages people t o
subjectively smear their impressions into monolithi c
categorizations . Thus, despite the details of whether a
system is seen as fun because it is easy, seen as eas y
because it is fun, or even eventually experienced as eas y
because it was initially fun and therefore got used a lot ,
there is a tendency for people to generalize across detail s
and more simply classify the system as "good"—meanin g
easy, fun, and perhaps more besides . Indeed, the only
way to avoid subjective smearing like this is to place both
systems side by side and force the contrasts out in a
usability experiment .
HOW IMPORTANT IS FUN ?
The potential for confusion between ease and fun is
serious . As we have argued, it is often difficult for peopl e
to split the two in analyzing their own experience, yet it
is necessary to do this if we are to understand software
quality (and improve it) . To the extent that we confus e
the two, we may be doing the wrong things to improv e
software quality . This confusion could lead to the
recommendation that the key to software quality is t o
make software as simple as possible . (Indeed, thi s
conclusion is often voiced now in discussions of
usability .) Yet, as we observed above, fun requires tha t
things not be as simple as possible . Our view is that th e
issues are more subtle, that we do not necessarily want t o
merely make things as simple as possible . We ought t o
make them fun .
Experiences that are fun are more attractive to people of
course, but fun is also likely to have powerful influence s
on what people will even try to do and on how long they
will persist . In a classic experiment, Lepper, Green an d
Nisbett (1973) studied a situation in which childre n
played with colored pencils . Half the children were
simply allowed to play with the pencils, the other hal f
were rewarded for doing so . The effect of this
manipulation was that the unrewarded children played
with the pencils longer than those who had bee n
rewarded . Lepper, Green and Nisbett suggested that the
SIGCHI Bulletin
intrinsic reward of the colored pencils alone was a
stronger incentive than the extrinsic reward offered fo r
playing with them, and that in fact, offering the extrinsic
reward weakened the attractiveness of the pencils .
This work has stimulated some analysis of compute r
environments and the sources of intrinsic reward tha t
may (or may not be) exploited by them . Malone (1981 ,
1984) analyzed the attractiveness of educationa l
computer games for children, stressing the capacity of th e
games to promote an intrinsic motivation toward
learning . Children playing these games are encouraged t o
construe difficulty as challenge, unfamiliarity as fantasy ,
and uncertainty as curiosity . Thus, instead of having t o
rely on an extrinsic incentive, like a teacher's praise, i n
order to overcome difficulty, unfamiliarity, an d
uncertainty, the child decides himself to take on
challenge and fantasy . This intrinsic, self-generate d
motivation is more powerful .
Carroll (1982) analyzed adult navigational games lik e
Adventure . Games are typically divided into episodes o r
phases, and these in turn are clearly subdivided, givin g
the user a sense of place in the game scenario . Within an
episode, games are very responsive : when the user doe s
something, it has a visible consequence . Making progres s
toward situational goals is also made obvious (e .g., by a
score) . These properties of spatiality, interactiveness, an d
feedback are sources of intrinsic motivation and draw th e
user into the game . The object of a game is to succeed ,
but games also typically encourage the attitude that it i s
all right to fail . Moreover, the consequence of failing i s
cushioned : nothing too terrible happens . Both of thes e
properties encourage users to take risks they might, i n
other situations, eschew . Finally, a game always project s
to the user some sense of control ; the person always ha s
substantial influence on the outcome . Clearly, some o f
these techniques are not exploited by current softwar e
and systems . Users often have little sense of where the y
are in a system or task scenario or of whether they are
making progress ; errors can be catastrophic (e .g. ,
accidentally reformatting a hard disk) . But clearly als o
many such techniques could be exploited . For example,
presenting an interface that is initially simple but
increases its complexity over time to challenge the user :
success is within reach at each stage, but becomes mor e
and more demanding. Interfaces that arouse imagery an d
emotions via the use of metaphors (animated mess y
desks) can stimulate fantasy . Providing novel stimulatio n
via the use of media (sound, graphics) or randomnes s
and humor can stimulate curiosity .
These ideas are tantalizing . There are, of course, alread y
commercial systems that have exploited some of them .
The metaphoric icons of the Lisa are manipulated b y
pointing gestures and create a fantasy electronic deskto p
for the user . The high resolution graphic presentatio n
helps create a sense of spatiality in which data an d
operations are there . The simple mouse pointing devic e
enhances the interactiveness of the system and the sens e
of control the user feels. But despite a growing numbe r
of such examples, it is still more striking that there is a
22 January 1988 Volume 19 Number 3
paucity of work on fun in user interfaces . This is
unfortunate because fun is not only important in itsel f
(providing intrinsic reward to users) but, as we hav e
suggested, it is frequently tangled up with ease in people's
thinking about usability, and therefore can be a double -
whammy impact on. buying decisions in computing .
Perhaps worst of all, the general lack of attention to fun ,
and to motivational issues generally, is more clearly i n
evidence in the research world than in the developmen t
world !
So why has fun not been studied more thoroughly? On e
important reason is that it is difficult to empirically
measure . Ease can be measured in terms of th e
performance time, time to learn, inventories and count s
of errors . How do you measure fun? One interface migh t
indeed be more fun than another but still not make user s
laugh out loud . Another reason for the shortage of wor k
on fun lies in the politics of research . Clearly, one can see
researchers could be somewhat inhibited about studyin g
fun . Would a computer scientist who tries to build a
professional career studying fun be taken seriously?
WE NEED TO STUDY FU N
To this point, we have suggested that there is a commo n
confusion in discussions of usability that conflates ease
and fun . We have argued that this confusion is importan t
because designers will have to do different things t o
achieve these different ends . Finally, we have argued that
fun is potentially very important in its own right . Fro m
this, we reason that there is an important need to develo p
a research program in fun and motivation . We have littl e
to go on . The only extant empirical work, that o f
Malone, focused on children playing educational games .
There may be quite a leap from there to typical compute r
applications (accountants learning to use spreadsheets) .
How relevant that work will really turn out to be is a n
open question.
Indeed, Malone (1981) himself raised the point tha t
interacting with a game could be fundamentall y
different from using a computer tool to complete a
practical task . Sources of intrinsic motivation in game s
might not have the same effectiveness whe n
implemented in computer tools . There surely are many
differences between playing games and doing work ,
differences in the outcomes we and others expect ,
differences in how intimately we identify ourselves wit h
the activity, differences in the situationa l
appropriateness of engaging in the activity . Currently ,
we have some understanding of fun based on games,
but we have no understanding of how people feel abou t
or relate to tools they use . We do not even have a
framework for posing such questions .
Consider the question of uncertainty and risk . Carroll
(1982) suggested that games are motivating in par t
because they project to the user the presumption that
being uncertain is all right, that risk taking i s
appropriate and necessary . He suggested that trainin g
environments for computer software might be mor e
effective if they also encouraged risk taking and eased
SIGCHI Bulletin
worries about uncertainty (for example, many game s
allow the player to save the game state before tryin g
something risky—the saved state can be recalled if al l
does not go well) . However, people differ on the degre e
of risk they are willing to take ; tasks differ in terms o f
how much risk is associated with failure . Introducing
uncertainty into a flight simulator game probabl y
makes it more enjoyable . Introducing uncertainty into a
text editor or spreadsheet may or may not make it mor e
enjoyable . What are the underlying differences here an d
from what do they arise?
Fantasy is an aspect of games that also raises question s
about real work systems . Carroll and Thomas (1982 )
suggested that logically equivalent tasks may b e
represented in various forms, thus helping to make
routine tasks more intrinsically interesting . The y
imagined a situation in which a factory control jo b
could be presented to the worker as a variety of virtual
tasks (e .g . piloting an airplane) . The worker could b e
performing the same information processing tasks, bu t
under different metaphoric cover stories . This strategy
could address the boredom and vigilance problems tha t
often inhere in very routine tasks . But it clearly raises
other issues too : Would virtual tasks, however well -
intentioned, seem exploitive to workers? Would the y
ultimately be distractions that just get in the way ?
Curiosity also might be exploited . Reading narrativ e
texts, like novels, arouses curiosity by presentin g
material embedded in a coherent thematic structure .
This structure causes readers to pose questions t o
themselves, and then later answers these questions .
Other textual structures stimulate curiosity far less—fo r
example, the parts list structure of reference
documentation . The tradition of presenting softwar e
and system documentation in businesslike, formal and
dry prose is perhaps missing an opportunity to motivate
users to pay attention . Perhaps a narrative story abou t
a scenario of use would be more intrinsically motivatin g
than a list of key functions and their syntax . Perhap s
this would lead to better learning and performance .
We realize that many people will read this article as a
sort of joke . To this extent, we are the victims of ou r
own analysis : there are risks in being serious about fun .
Still though, we continue to see, without humor, th e
prospect of a decade of research analysis of usabilit y
possibly failing to provide the leverage it could o n
designing systems people will really want to use b y
ignoring what could be a very potent determinant o f
subjective judgments of usability—fun .
ACKNOWLEDGMENT S
We are grateful to Amy Aaronson, Rick Herder an d
Jeff Kelley for commenting on earlier versions of thi s
article .
BIBLIOGRAPH Y
Carroll, J .M . 1982 . The adventure of getting to know a
computer . IEEE Computer, 15/11, 49-58 .
23 January 1988 Volume 19 Number 3
 Carroll, J .M . and Mazur, S .A . 1986 . LisaLearning .
IEEE Computer, 19/ 11, 35-49 .
Carroll, J .M . and Thomas, J .C . 1982 . Metaphor an d
the cognitive representation of computing systems .
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
12, 107-116 .
Festinger, L . 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance .
Evanston, IL : Row, Peterson .
Lepper, M .R., Green, D ., and Nisbett, R .E . 1973 .
Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic
rewards : A test of the overjustification hypothesis .
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 ,
129-137 .
Malone, T . W . 1981 . Toward a theory of intrinsicall y
motivating instruction . Cognitive Science, 4, 333-368 .
Malone, T . W . 1984 . Heuristics for designing enjoyable
user interfaces : Lessons from computer games . In J .
Thomas and M . Schneider, Human Factors in
Computer Systems, Norwood, N .J . : Ablex .

CHI Conference Proceedings CHI Conference Proceedings - hardcover editions, for

For credit card orders, call toll-free 1/800/342-6626 . All other sale outside the USA/Canada only:
orders : 301/528-4261 . Send mail orders with payment to : Elsevier Science Publishers, Book Order Dept ., P. O . Box
ACM Order Departmen t 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands .
P .O . Box 64145
Baltimore, MD 2126 4 Human Factors in Computing Systems, Proceedings
of the CHI'83 Conference, Boston, December 12-15 . 296
CHI'83 Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages . Price : Dfl . 115 .00 .
Boston, December 12-15, 296 pages ,
58 papers . Hardcover edition . Human Factors in Computing Systems - I L
Order No. 60883 0 Proceedings of the CHI'85 Conference, San Francisco, Apri l
ACM/SIGCHI members : $55.00 14-18 . 232 pages . Price : Dfl .125 .00.
Others : $60.00
Human Factors in Computing Systems - III .
CHI'85 Human Factors in Computing Systems , Proceedings of the CH I'86 Conference, Boston, April 13-17 .
San Francisco, April 14-18 . 231 pages, 38 papers . 361 pages .
Order No . 60885 0
ACM/SIGCHI members: $15 .00 Human Factors in Computing Systems and
Others : $20 .00 Graphics Interface - IV . Proceedings of the CHI + G I
87 Conference, Toronto, April 5-9, 1987 .
CHI'86 Human Factors in Computing Systems ,
Boston, April 13-17 . 361 pages, 58 papers and panels .
Order No . 608860
ACM/SIGCHI members : $20 .00
Others: $27 .0 0

CHI + GI 87 Human Factors in Computin g

Systems and Graphics Interface, Toronto, April 5-9 ,
1987 . 344 pages, 58 papers and panels .
Order No . 60887 0
ACM/SIGCHI members: $20.00
Others : $27 .00

SIGCHI Bulletin 24 January 1988 Volume 19 Number 3

View publication stats