Commit | Interaction Design
The Commit is a system involving both a smartphone and a wearable that helps users limit their spending on electronic gambling machines. Developed as part of DECO2200 at the University of Sydney.
Project Overview
Time Frame: 13 Weeks
Team Members: Eden Gorton, Harrison Khannah
Tools:Adobe IllustratorSketchFigmaAdobe PremiereTrelloMiro
My Role
Exploratory User Research
Engaged with various research methods to identify and reframe a worthwhile problem. Facilitated stakeholder workshops and consolidated findings into actionable insights.
Rapid Prototyping & Ideation
Rapidly created potential solutions using methods such as design by metaphors to explore interaction concepts.
UX Design & Film Creation
Produced assets including user journey maps, directed and created promotional and click-through videos, and developed animations for the user interface.
Please note that this is a topic in which we conducted extensive research, and it has been summarised for this page. For a more detailed look at our research, please contact me!
Project Background
Gambling is a highly addictive activity, resulting in compulsive engagement for some gamblers. We investigated how and why slot machines are so addictive. We found that slot machines account for over $14 billion in gambler losses, representing 62% of total gambling revenue. Gambling mechanisms are ubiquitous in Australia, with one slot machine per 114 people. Despite this, responsible gambling measures remain largely ineffective. Australia ranks number one in the world for the highest capita of problem gamblers, with uncontrollable gambling addiction affecting approximately 200,000 Australians.
We limited ourselves to addressing Electronic Gambling Machines (EGMs), also known as slot machines. We ruled out casino machines, due to the different user experiences requiring different strategies to address them.
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Research Plan
As a group, we divided what we wanted to research into three categories: Structural Characteristics (researched by me), Venue Characteristics (researched by Harrison), and Psychological Characteristics (researched by Eden).
To gain a more complete understanding of the problem space, we each designed research approaches and created three streams. Each of us interviewed a different range of stakeholders, providing unique perspectives. I investigated Structural Characteristics using the following methods:
1Mind-mapping
Mapping out key concepts and associations to identify how different elements of electronic gambling machines (EGMs) are connected.
2Literature Review / Secondary Research
Reviewing existing studies, data, and reports to understand patterns in gambling behaviours and machine design influences.
3Contextual Observation & Think-Aloud
Observing participants while they interacted with EGMs and asking them to verbalise their thought process in real time.
4Interviews & Questionnaires
Speaking with a range of stakeholders to capture diverse perspectives on gambling practices and perceived machine influences.
Each step of the research process was focused on answering these questions:
Key Questions
1Can people distinguish why one machine is better than another?
2Does the presence of a specific machine feature encourage gambling?
3Are gamblers aware of techniques used by EGM manufacturers to draw them in?
4Do gambling machine users have strong opinions about necessary changes?
5Do EGM users feel that other factors more strongly influence why they gamble?
By answering these questions, I gained a better understanding of how structural characteristics influence the operation of EGMs, and whether or not they contribute to addiction. After conducting literature reviews, I observed and interviewed a range of participants across different ages and lifestyles.
Research Analysis
Concluding this research process, we as a group took our findings and each created an affinity diagram, so we could group like insights into themes, and create a series of personas. We then storyboarded what a typical interaction with the slot machines would be like for each of our personas. Each persona represents one of the themes featured in our affinity diagram. In this case, the creation of personas was to isolate individual specific needs for my participants. As stated earlier, my participants wanted to win, to have fun, to have good company, and to have implements to help them stop.
Personas
Persona 1: Winning Wilma
Persona 2: Enjoyment Eric
Persona 3: Company Chris
Persona 4: Stopping Steven
Storyboards
Storyboard 1: Winning Wilma
Storyboard 2: Enjoyment Eric
Storyboard 3: Company Chris
Storyboard 4: Stopping Steven
Reframing the Problem
Following this process, we reflected on what we'd found and 'reframed' our problem, what if we could try to not remove fun, but give the users context in the same way an arcade does? The arcade is an example of an institution that doesn't provide the users with financial gain, however the provision of information in context while playing the game of how much money they're spending helps users stop, if need be.
Measuring Success
Having completed our research, our group reconvened to share our insights, and after our collaboration we learned that navigating this problem space is complex. There are a range of stakeholders involved legally, and some of the only feasible ways to help those addicted, is to operate through their consumer's own devices, rather than changing the venue. We as a group developed a bespoke set of heuristics to measure the effectiveness of our solution.
The Criteria for Success 1
The Criteria for Success 2
Rapid Ideation
As a group we conducted Brainwriting 6-3-5's to rapidly ideate with as many possible ideas to address one or more of the criteria defined earlier. This lead to approximately 30 different concepts. We then analysed our ideas by comparing them against our criteria for success, and made note of which adhered to the most criteria items effectively.
This left us with three strong concepts: Altfun, The involve system & The Comm-it. Each of these proposed concepts had their own positives and drawbacks, addressing the criteria each in different ways.
To select the best concept out of the three, we created user journey maps to depict how our personas would incorporate to these concepts in their daily lives. After this, we found the Comm-it to be the most effective, and when modified, could involve aspects from the other two solutions.
The Birth of the Comm-it
The development of the Comm-it concept means that we address legal and human rights issues that other concepts had. It tackled all of our criteria effectively, creating a viable concept that could be developed and tested.
A precondition is that users 'have to want help' - or they will manipulate others to achieve their goals. We developed two pereceived use-cases for this solution. For one of the use cases, there must be a trusted family member who is willing to help the 'problem gambler'. We made our 'problem gambler' Sam and our 'trusted family member' Sammy.
Use Case 1
Use Case 2
Use Case 3
Methodology of our Development
To develop the Comm-it, we followed a process of iteration and continuous development of our idea. We had 14 different participants involved with the testing at one or more iterations of development.
We used a combination of usability testing & think-alouds as well as roleplaying among our various test participants. After our usability tests, we conducted post-testing surveys, to see how our users found this process. The aim of mixed usability testing was to test our conceptual model against our user’s mental model, to understand if our design principle implementation was successful and where the core errors were. We implemented role-play to understand the usability in conjunction with conceptual application and think aloud to find out why the users are having issues. It was also an effective tool to test both phone and wearable as one user can't utilise both in our second use-case.
We also used co-creation and heuristic evaluations from our second iteration of testing onwards. We involved our participants in the design process as we found they had unique and compelling ideas on how to develop a system with no precedent such as this one. Our participants helped us develop use-case 2, and also create use-case 3 during iteration 2.
Heuristic Evaluation
Usability Testing
Iteration 1
In iteration 1, we created paper prototypes and sketched for our two applications (mobile & wearable) and created task-based activities for our usability testing and informing future iterations. We uploaded our sketches into the digital application, POP, to allow users to experience the prototype on the device it was intended.
Iteration 2
In iteration 2, we developmed mid-fidelity prototypes and developed a 'new use-case 3', to allow for users to precommit how much money they want to spend before spending. During this iteration, we introduced our heuristic evaluation alongside the co-creation process. We detailed the flow of the phone app, and the wearable in 'family=wear' and 'self-wear' mode.
Iteration 3
Iteration 3 was concerned with creating the UI elements, and developing an aesthetic, such that many of the issues found with earlier prototypes (most importantly readability), could be addressed. We created our tool tips, cards, and input sliders in this iteration to increase the ease of use.
Navigation Options
Phone Navigation Options
Wearable Navigation Options
Design Choices
Typography
Core Design Elements
Colour Choices
High-Fidelity Prototype & Video
Family Interaction Wearable
Self Regulation Wearable
Mobile
How the Comm-it Works
The Comm-it is a device that encourages the user to set their own barriers and deter themselves from problem spending. It also allows for a trusted family member to be involved in this process.
The Comm-it's aim was never to eradicate the gambling problem in Australia, but to help williing individual's with their problem gambling. It encourages family communication, and provides self-help methods, for gamblers who want help. It provides a visual on income lost, rather than income 'won'. It gives the user goals and aspirations, to catalyse their change management process. The Comm-it continuously encourages the user to spend less by displaying their losses and time spent.
The development of this product has not only has ensured improved usability and user satisfaction throughout our design iterations, but has made us continuously more aware of our users’ internal conflict. These conflicts inform the co-design process, allowing the concept of the Comm-it to develop alongside the user.
Therefore, the Comm-it was once simply an app for commiting to reduced spending, now it's about helping you commit to your own pre-determined limit with optional your family assistance. By providing user's choice and displaying consequences, we educate our users not only on the ramifications of problem spending for loved ones, but more importantly - yourself.