Slashdot Mirror
Why Work Is Looking More Like a Video Game
james_bong666 writes "According to the New York Times, business software vendors can learn a great deal from how video games are designed.
This makes a lot of sense — how many professionals like working with their software in the office as much as gaming after hours? Developers can deal with looking at tables and grids full of data to make decisions and get things done, but other types of workers (executives, salespeople, etc.) have little to no attention span and need a picture to be worth a thousand words, i.e. their software designed completely differently."
Now Jack T. will to stifle productivity too!
We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass!
Actually videogames are becoming more like work than being a diversion where a person can blow off steam. Have you played GTA: San Andreas? All those mini button pushing games just to get the character up to snuff to complete a quest. Don't get me started on Harvest Moon. Pokemon with its breeding, hatching eggs, growing berries and other nonsense. Games don't reward the player for their skill or talent at completing a level or pulling off a stunt. Nowadays games simply add hours to their playtime by adding hours and hours of pointless grinding to unlock something really stupid.
By the way, I don't care how much someone loves their job. Anyone who stays after-hours and plays games or just hangs out is sad.
Actually it's not the interface that makes the game fun... There are some games that have great interfaces - that I personally do not find fun to play (CIV, WoW), etc. I also disagree with this statment: "other types of workers (executives, salespeople, etc.) have little to no attention span and need a picture to be worth a thousand words" I fail to see how employment position is a realisic and valid way to determine attention span.
The guys at Naked Objects (http://www.nakedobjects.org/) have been singing a similar tune for some time now. Not the part about making business more like games, but about using "open-ended" and proper object oriented software that allows user interaction similar to games. I think they even used The Incredible Machine as inspiration.
You could get even greater compliance if you showed their competitors getting blown up when an individual's sales figures are better than their co-workers. I mean, if you're going to make it like video game, go all the way!
Next ad in, when your boss pisses you off, his likeness appears in a first person shooting game - as the "monster".
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
You mean
"Gaming is more like work nowadays"
?
These people don't need their software designed completely differently, they just need it designed better.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I think TFA is missing the point. After reading it, I came away with "If we make work less like work and more like fun, then it will be fun." However, fun does not equal associating pictures, likes/dislikes, favorite colors etc with a business contact. I think the point is that if your job requires you to use a CRM system, then it is not fun by definition, and no amount of reskinning that interface is going to make it more enjoyable.
I agree that the ideas of connection, management and cooperation within MMORPG are potentially interesting in the context of managing large companies, but the "making work like a videogame" metaphor doesn't work for me.
yskel
...I thought it was because of the genetically engineered monster roaming the cubicles. Otherwise known as "Diane from Accounting".
Or may be a first person shooter with the TAX man as a way of handling sales taxes.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Is there no limit to the shallowness and stupidity of the younger generation?
From here:
h hhhhH!"
Another user rings "I said what I wanted was more space on my account, *please*"
"Sure, hang on"
I hear him gasp his relief even though he'd covered the mouthpeice.
"There, you've got *plenty* of space now!"
"How much have I got?" he simps
"Well, let's see, you have 4 Meg available"
"Wow! Eight Meg in total, thanks!" he says, pleased with his bargaining power
"No" I interrupt, savouring this like a fine red at room temperature, with steak, extra rare, to follow; "4 Meg in total.."
"Huh? I'd used 4 Meg already, How could I have 4 Meg Available?"
I say nothing. It'll come to him.
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggg
Does this mean that in order to advance to "the next level," you have to kill the Big Boss at the end of the current level?
This has parallels with what I am learning in medical school (yes, a med student who reads slashdot *gasp*). We are taught that we cannot use medical jargon to explain things to patients, because our level of training and experience is completely different from that of the average patient. This is also true in software, but I don't think developers are taught this point. This often results in the user not understanding what may have been obvious to the software designer, and a program that is not popular with the public. In both fields, I feel one must think at the level of the end user. In medicine, it is to provide the best health outcome by promoting understanding. We do this because we recognize that not everyone is health literate. In software, I think to be successful, it is also important to recognize that not everyone is tech literate, and design products accordingly.
I can definitely see this sort of thing happening in my line of work; I'm a mechanical engineer who specializes in design. I'll spend the bulk of my work week playing with 3D models, and the finite element model does all the work I hated having to do by hand. The people who use my work give ratings for how much they like the final product, so I like to think of (that rating)/(total cost) as my "score".
When your workplace starts looking more like a video game (for example, Doom 1/2/3) you need to start seeking help before it is too late....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The reason why this is happening is because most business software designed by engineers for engineers ends up being shelfware. One of the main ideas behind modern Business Intelligence software is that the most sophisticated pattern recognition engine lies between our ears. Give the user a well designed visualization of their data and they'll see the pattern. Give them grids and tables and they'll shrug.
ETrade's user trading interface was deliberately designed to look something like a video game. Not too many choices, self-guiding, big type. This encourages users to trade too much.
plays like a video game, now. It's all about maximizing your benefits while balancing your time expenditures. I, uhh... guess intentionally taking damage in a a speed run would be akin to taking a late fee on your car payment in order to make the rent payment. Boring stuff, eh?
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
or is the other way around ?
Richard Chesler: [Reading a piece of paper] The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club?
Narrator: [Voice-over] I'm half asleep again; I must've left the original in the copy machine.
Richard Chesler: The second rule of Fight Club - is this yours?
Narrator: Huh?
Richard Chesler: Pretend you're me, make a managerial decision: you find this, what would you do?
Narrator: [pauses] Well, I gotta tell you: I'd be very, very careful who you talk to about that, because the person who wrote that... is dangerous.
[Gets up from the chair]
Narrator: [Talking slowly] And this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years. Someone very, very close to you.
Narrator: [Voice-over] Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
[Snatches the piece of paper from boss' hands]
Narrator: [Voice-over] And I used to be such a nice guy.
Narrator: Or maybe you shouldn't bring me every little piece of trash you happen to pick up.
[Phone rings]
Narrator: [Into phone] Compliance and Liability...?
Marla Singer: My tit's gonna rot off.
Narrator: [to boss] Would you excuse me? I need to take this.
NO CARRIER
Farnsworth: Who else has a question for the What-If machine? Scruffy? Katrina? Xanthor?
Fry: Ooh, I have one. I'm good at video games and bad at everything else. That's why I wish life were more like a video game.
Farnsworth: Can you put that in the form of a question?
Fry: Uh, what if... that thing I said?
Farnsworth: (lighting incense and kneeling) O Great Machine, we beseech thee, what if life were more like a video game?
I've always wanted a word processor where backspace and delete would show Packman eating away the letters.
Bert
No doubt, looking at game UIs or other UIs offers invaluable input. Yet, I would argue that it's more valuable to adopt the design and development process that the game industry has in place.
There is a reason why contemporary games often have fairly progressive and intuitive user interface solutions. As most game designer have realized, you need to have the visual communication folks on-board at the start, and they need to have input in to the design of communication tools. More often then not, desktop applications are designed by a software engineer and skinned by a graphic designer. This is fairly miserable approach.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I don't think it's a matter of work imitating games, I think it's that application developers are now going down the same usability design paths that games require. Most people aren't required to play games, so the successful ones are the engaging ones, the games that give you a clear idea of what you need to do, and clearly present the required information. People like overcoming challenges when they think they see the way to do it. At work people are often dealing with scenarios where they would like to do a good job, but may not have the information on what is required, or they are dealing with too many factors to filter the wheat from chaff. They may lose focus because they have forgotten what their goals are. Most of management training revolves around how to present information to people, which provides the feedback loop people need to do their jobs. The idea that this is starting to show up in applications is an interesting, but natural step.
"how many professionals like working with their software in the office as much as gaming after hours?"
Work hasn't been all that fun lately, but most modern games I encounter are still less fun.
should read: Why Video Games Are Looking More Like Work
I like sitting in my recliner at home a lot more than in my office chair at work, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the work chair. Different missions (pleasure vs productivity) yield different levels of enjoyment.
I thought work was like a Dilbert cartoon. Actually, when I worked in the video game industry for six years, management at one company did banned Dilbert cartons from cubicle walls since the similarities were amazingly relevent.
I actually made the comparison between a video game and my work just a few days ago, though not in the manner being discussed in the above article. Here is an example:
;)
I was tasked with setting up the Outlook profiles of 3 new users in the accounting office. This should be a very straight-forward, brain-dead job. To complete this, however, involved me eventually having to replace a machine in the office, which meant a trip across campus to the purchasing office in order to locate a spare box. The purchasing guy wouldn't give up his spare box willingly unless I performed another task he needed accomplished and which had been far lower on IT's priority list. To complete THAT task, I had to drive to another location, speak to yet another person, fix yet another problem, and finally wind up back where I started.
Had someone asked me to climb a magic mountain to retrieve an ancient artifact in order to unlock some secret spell would have made as much sense.
On the flipside, I gained +750 EP, +200 gold, and rose 2 levels.
Particularly one surrounding processes.
On the one side, you've got the stereotypical salesperson who "doesn't care about the tool or if something's wrong with it - they just want to get the job done".
On the other, you've got the stereotypical techie who "doesn't care about the salesperson - he's got the requirements in front of him and as far as he's concerned, that's it".
Both of these people (and real examples of these stereotypes do exist) need to get off their high horse for a minute. The salesman's right, it is a tool. But it's not like a spanner where it either works or it doesn't and it would pretty clear to a small child if there were something wrong with it. The person who creates the tool has no idea what the tool should do or how it should work without speaking to the salesman, and the salesman needs to understand that either he or someone in his department is going to have to spend a long time talking with IT to ensure that they understand his needs.
Similarly, the techie is well aware that he's got a bunch of complex tools at his disposal. However, it's all too common to find that his familiarity with those tools has led him to expect a similar level of familiarity in others, and he has disdain for those who don't. It doesn't take much scrutiny to realise that this simply isn't how the real world works - my mechanic doesn't expect me to know that there's an oxygen sensor built into my exhaust or what it's there for. All I know is petrol goes in one hole, oil in another, water in a third - and that all need to be present. Turn the key, put it in gear, hit the accelerator and you've got forward motion.
I'd argue that the problem here is one of interfaces - not just the human-computer one, but also the human-human one. With cars, all cars are fairly similar in terms of how you drive them. Sure, the more you spend the more refined things become, but that's as far as it goes. That's certainly not true of either computer interfaces or of people.
That, unfortunately, is as far as I've got with that theory. Bit of a shame really - if I could solve all the IT management problems in the world that easily I'd be a very rich man.
VR golf
I'm an up-and-coming game designer who has spent a lot of his time researching fundamental game mechanics and play concepts. A lot of what's coming out of the slashdotted article is that the program is being redesigned to make more sense to the user. Business productivity and sales software was never meant to be "exciting" or "flashy", it was just designed to get the job done.
The reason why video games such as Second Life, World of Warcraft, and even RTS games such as SimCity, Civilization, and Age of Empires are so successful is that they present their data in a way that makes sense to the Player. The data is shown in a way that the Player can easily interpret in terms of His/Her progression, and it is this simplication of statistics the game's software provides that removes a lot of the number-crunching and interpretation that is usually involved in the real-life equivalent the game simulates (being mayor of a city, for instance). Thanks to this the Player spends less time interpreting data and more time thinking about how to resolve conflicts or improve performance. In terms of software design, more is being done under the hood to better address the connection between abstract data and the user's goals. Like the article points out, the kinds of organizations found in MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft and Second Life are so prevalent and successful thanks to the design of each games' respective interface. Guilds succeed because the game was designed to handle them.
I don't think that salespeople have "short attention spans" like the article claims, I just believe that there is a larger gap between the Users' goals and the software that sustains them. Programmers these days have it easy with high-level languages such as C++, but if we all went back to the age where we had to program in machine code or assembly language we would be dealing with similar issues.
...Now we can again have a dog light the house on fire.
Table-ized A.I.
I've been saying since 1978, that a modern business should resemble the bridge on the Starship "Enterprise". It is not the "interface" that's missing so much as the "feedback". A business has a cycle: The process of making contact with a prospect, getting an order, fulfilling the order and getting paid may actually happen pretty quickly in some instances, but it is not instantaneous. MIS can only do three things; measure compliance with the business objectives (like accounting), schedule the elements of the process, or play "what if" to make the process more efficient and profitable. Any other computers engaged in the company are probably there for "production" of some sort, helping the cycle become fulfilled. The people in the company take action to complete the cycle, but many times they don't know if they are on track and what the effect of their action is, or even if it contributes to the fulfillment of the product or service. A game/reporting interface should give nearly immediate feedback on the result of the action. This is what happens in a game. Furthermore, the system should be adaptive. The interface should adapt, the feedback should adapt, and the result should be better actions on the part of the participants.
On the "what if" side, I am reminded that the Atomic Energy Commission used the Atari game "Meltdown" to teach the basics of running a nuclear reactor through simulation. Each business "system" ought to have a simulator to enhance the process for the customers, the employees and the business.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I see where they're coming from - my work resembles World of Warcraft. I'm a Level 2 Helpdesk Officer, work with trolls and orcs, don't have nearly enough gold, and have to grind for ages (often repeating the same missions multiple times) to get enough experience to level up.
Especially from this game.
I spend most of my spare time at home watching porn. Does that mean work should be more like porn?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I already can make work look like a videogame... Just look at my interface to kill processes :-D
I feel that video games are becoming more and more like work. Most video games today have various features that require some odd number of hours in order to unlock some stupid hat or whatever. These tasks that they make us feel obligated to complete are rarly fun or interesting, just annother goal on our plates.
Yes, it's a monstrously ignorant AND arrogant statement. The writer condescends that anyone other than "developers" has depth of thought.
Besides the comment above concerning the juggling of a large number of time-sensitive tasks, there are many, many different types of thought and operating environments.
I've been a software developer, a salesmen and an executive. Each role has its own focus and its own "style" of thinking. Most developers can't sell because they can't properly communicate with people who are interested in the result, not the tool itself. Technical people also tend to get very, very jealous of salespeople who are perceived as "playing" all the time. Being good at anything takes investment, effort, guts and skill. Ask the average software developer to make 10 cold calls on the phone to potential clients and see what happens.
There's a wonderful scene in the Zulu Dawn movie where the British infantry men need ammunition. Their supply sergeant makes them stand in line and will only give them one box at a time following procedures. He's so focussed on the task and enamored with his skill at performing it he totally misses the big picture and the soldiers can't get the ammunition they need.
Likewise, I can't tell you the number of times I've watched a designer screw up a presentation because he's clueless about the non-verbal queues from the prospects or how to speak confidently and at the level of details the client wants. They usually don't comprehend the business of business or the impact of many decisions they make upon the clients. Are they "bad" people? No, they're just ignorant and unaware. Their focus might be just what is needed to get the little details right and go from "almost there" to "it works." but it takes many different personality, activity and communication styles working as a team to have any kind of real success.
Multi-touch interface has already regained some strength for making apps more intuitive to use, in part thanks to recent efforts of Jeff Han. He garnered much interest through a demonstration at TED 2006. See what he's up to today with his new company.
For me, work is more like a cartoon.....Dilbert, to be precise.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Not everyone is addicted to games. Games pit your wit & skill against some artificial creation and reward you with points or cute sounds, etc
Business software can reward you with spending cash, a feeling of accomplishment and the respect of worthy associates. Whatever economic goals and ideas you have, this software can amplify your ability to realize them. Quality nutrition!
Perhaps there is a perceptual disconnect in some people between the work they do and the money they have in the bank. These people might slack off at work or at home without realizing that there are consequences for themselves and others. Enthusiasm for work will not be generated by more amusing software interfaces. It comes from an internal reward system that is triggered by a worthwhile job well done.
I'm self-employed and am challenged by real needs for research, production, distribution, marketing, and the tiresome need to verify large bank deposits, etc.
When I work in Excel to plot a more efficient formula for a product, or work in Word or Dreamweaver to improve a marketing message, or simply browse the net to spy on competing products/services, I'm in heaven. Except perhaps when web sites present cute animated graphics, noises and 'innovative' navigation systems.
I'm not a workaholic; I'd rather be at the beach. I simply want the biggest reward for the least effort, and that depends upon reliable business software; software that doesn't intrude. I'm very happy with what's available and don't believe that the minds that waste precious hours programming otherworld frivolity will be able to improve my business software.
...omphaloskepsis often...
This is true for everyone up to a point. But it might be exposing the weaknesses in the sorts of people who go into executive/sales positions rather than the UI. Those who can absorb data in the 'denser' form of charts and tables will naturally have an advantage over those who can't. Those who can't will migrate to careers where this ability is less important. Unfortunately, as technology progresses, more and more of this 'dense' data will become a part of all jobs. The executive of yesteryear may only have needed a good golf game, but with Sarbanes-Oxley, they actually need to understand what they are signing.
The moral of the story is: When you're in school, lay off the bong and the keg and study. The only jobs left with a really user-friendly UI are the POS terminals with pictures of burgers and French fries on the buttons.
Have gnu, will travel.
Just like game companies, we won't have to worry about it!
I'd recommend you give origami a try. It's a useful exercise for those doing design.
http://www.persuasivegames.com/games/game.aspx?gam e=disaffected Disaffected!- a videogame parody of the Kinko's copy store.
This is both correct and incorrect.
I believe that executives (especially those that have worked their way to the top) would not have a very short attention span. To the contrary, they can see the big picture and work their way towards their ultimate goal.
Some people have short attention spans, can see the big picture, yet cannot reach their goals. 5% of the population suffer from something called ADHD, (in it's six forms). There are some very high execs who have ADHD and have managed to control it, or use it to their advantage. For the others - you just gotta cope with it.
As an aside one good thing about ADHD is hyperfocusing - very cool for those who experience it. Just annoying because it always happens at the wrong time.
But, I agree, if work was more enjoyable we would work harder, (and this applies to people with or without ADHD).
-- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34
If you keep doing that you're just level grinding.
I have lots of friends outside work, who I enjoy seeing. And I have friends in work to, who I also enjoy seeing, and they help to make the day pass quicker. If you strive so hard to separate work from home, you must really hate your job.
Hyperfocusing would be even more cool if I could control it. There are few things worse for your grades than hyperfocusing on NetHack instead of homework. It seems to work ok for reading, though, I went through the Wheel of Time in a week.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
But I'd like to point out that I can still hijack your own post Madlibs-style.
I actually don't agree with a video-game interface at all. But I would suggest that part of the reason you think IT is toxic is, you're probably missing a lot of what happens, especially if you're the sales type. For example, we could both look at an identical incident, and you could see a tech being uncooperative, condescending, and downright mean to a fellow employee, while I could see the employee being stubborn and unwilling/unable to learn, and the IT person being as patient as they possibly could before they got snarky.
And such incidents go both ways. The IT person probably couldn't communicate very well, and the salesperson probably wasn't as attentive as they could be. The IT person might walk away from it with a "people are stupid" attitude, and the salesperson might walk away with an "IT is rude" attitude. And these attitudes will color future incidents, even if ultimately, no one in particular is at fault.
It's not too hard to go from that to imagining the wrong person getting blamed. One ancedotal example (not mine, can't remember exactly where it's from) -- user calls up, claims their keyboard was stolen, asks if tech took it. Tech says no, it wasn't, but he can bring over a new keyboard soon (kind of doing critical work on the mailserver right now). User is furious, calls tech's boss, who calls tech and demands he go fix the problem right now. Tech carries keyboard over, opens the user's keyboard tray/drawer/thing to put it in, and finds the user's original keyboard there, ready to be used. User is a bit surprised that the thing slides out, but almost instantly goes back to being enraged that no one told them it did that, and demanding the tech do something about it...
The simple fact is, there are fewer IT people and more management/sales/business people, and the management people are (obviously) in charge. My best guess is this is somewhat like, say, post-world-war-1 Germany. There are more Christians than Jews, although Jews provide a needed service (banking), and the Christians are in charge (if there is such a thing), so when you need someone to blame, blame the Jews!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Sorry for the rather mean sarcasm, but lately my entire job has become devoted to having to produce output that has been pre-digested for the consumption of supposedly intelligent professionals who are somehow unable to look at a table with more than two rows and three columns without throwing up their hands in frustration.
That's a bold statement to make. Care to back that up with numbers? I'm guessing this is based on your experience, and I'm guessing that you're a programmer. So I'm further guessing that the UIs you design suck. That's okay. Designing UIs should not be your job. Your job should be to write the backend. Stop doing UI. Get your company to hire somebody who has a clue about UI and knows how to run usability tests.