Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio
Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio
Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Although explorative design <strong>games</strong> come in many varieties, good<br />
design <strong>games</strong> seem to share some characteristics. According to<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>t (2006), these include but are not limited to the following:<br />
they have open t<strong>as</strong>ks that allow the participants make their own<br />
interpretations <strong>and</strong> find meaningful focus; are engaging; create<br />
relaxed <strong>and</strong> informal atmosphere that incre<strong>as</strong>es creativity; utilise<br />
various senses; include ambiguous <strong>and</strong> open ended props that<br />
force the players to be explicit in describing how they underst<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> interpret them: <strong>and</strong> they provide a shared design language.<br />
3.1.2<br />
Purposes<br />
of<br />
design<br />
<strong>games</strong><br />
in<br />
general<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
in<br />
co–design<br />
particularly<br />
The variety of design <strong>games</strong> illustrates the flexible character attached to<br />
them that allows a wide application area. Where<strong>as</strong> Habraken <strong>and</strong> Gross<br />
(1987) found concept design <strong>games</strong> useful research <strong>tool</strong>s for underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
designers’ concepts in academic context, Iversen <strong>and</strong> Buur found their value<br />
in teaching design students to become sensitive towards social <strong>as</strong>pects of<br />
Participatory <strong>Design</strong>. Ehn <strong>and</strong> Sjögren’s (1991) organizational design <strong>games</strong>,<br />
for their part, focused on empowering users to express their insights to designers,<br />
while Buur <strong>and</strong> Søndergaard (2000), Johansson (2005) <strong>and</strong> Br<strong>and</strong>t<br />
(2006) looked beyond users to open the design process to several stakeholders.<br />
All of these authors referred to their approaches or methods <strong>as</strong> a game<br />
or a design game. Does this then mean that they share some attributes or<br />
elements, even though they seem distinctive from the outset?<br />
Firstly, Habraken <strong>and</strong> Gross (1987), <strong>as</strong> well <strong>as</strong> Ehn <strong>and</strong> Sjögren (1991),<br />
state that they were inspired by Wittgenstein’s language-game, <strong>and</strong> since<br />
the other authors build on them, we can say that the above-mentioned<br />
methods all share the same b<strong>as</strong>e. Br<strong>and</strong>t (2006, p 57) describes the<br />
general idea of the language-game in the following way: “On a general<br />
level the philosopher Wittgenstein 12 sees the notion of language-<strong>games</strong> <strong>as</strong><br />
constituting human practices. Rather than individuals formulating exact<br />
statements, the intertwining of different voices in specific situations shapes<br />
language <strong>and</strong> herby the practice.” For their part, Ehn <strong>and</strong> Kyng (1987, pp<br />
169–195) state that the purpose of the organizational <strong>games</strong> is to create a<br />
language-game common to both designers <strong>and</strong> users. Despite this starting<br />
point, they remind us that there is more to design <strong>games</strong> than just a<br />
language; namely, design <strong>games</strong> use tangible elements, mock-ups, to provide<br />
users with h<strong>and</strong>s-on experiences.<br />
Secondly, the authors share a similar view on the design. According to<br />
Habraken <strong>and</strong> Gross (1987), “<strong>Design</strong>ing is a social activity that takes place<br />
among people who negotiate, make proposals, set rules for their conduct<br />
<strong>and</strong> for the work to be done, <strong>and</strong> follow such rules. In short, to a large extent,<br />
12 Wittgenstien, L. (1953). Filosofiska undersökningar (in Swedish). Philosophical Investigations.<br />
Stockholm, Thales<br />
97