Ludic & Social Media Interaction Design Principles in Smart Cities By Patrick J. Coopock

The article looks at the notion of Smart cities and looks at how ludic and social media interaction principles as tools for involving citizens to rethink the development of their cities, (Coopock, 2014, 111).


The article goes on to talk about how augmented or Alternative Reality Games that embody ludic interaction design principles “challenge and facilitate players in moving back and forth across physical and digital cultural space” (Coopock, 2014, 117). Ludic design principles can create a great sense of ambiguity as players cross both physical and digital space, it merges the real and the game world.


Johannes Huizinga’s notion of the “Magic Circle”, is often reffrenced by game designers. Huizinga used it to characterize the experience between the fictional worlds and the rule system of games, and rules of everyday life outside the game, (Coopock, 2014, p118).


“The This is a Game (TIAG) frame establishes player expectations and acknowledgements as participants in play. Interactions with the game system generate a ludic discursive universe in the This is a Game layer,” (p118, Coopock, 2014). As the players attention switches to the ludic universe the TIAG interpreative rules become active in the players mind, this sets aside the players real world knowledge so that the player is no longer surprised by things like how high Super Mario can jump. However some games also have a secondary system of expectations nested within the TIAG layer. This secondary system allows the player to develop a habit of believing that This is Not a Game. This is crucial for keeping the player in a TINAG state and is commonly used in pervasive games, (pervasive games are games played in public spaces, parks, museums, galleries) (Coopock, 2014, p118). “Augumented Reality and Alternate reality use these mechanisms by creating ambiguity between TIAG and TINAG,” (Coopock, 2014, p118).


The article goes on to give examples of games that have used Alternate Reality or Augumented Reality, and have used the principles of Ludic Interface design in order to engage players in the learning process “by revealing for them new dimensions of cultural spaces and places they already believe they know well, and interact with daily,” (Coopock, 2014, p118)



Ludic Interfaces Mathias Fuchs, Georg Russegger and Moisés Mañas Carbonell

According to this article the recent success of the wii controller and Microsoft kinect systems points towards Ludic interfaces being critical in transforming video game culture, (Fuchs, ect, 2013).


Ludic Interfaces vs Straight Interfaces


Before the Wii controller, many artisits explored the potential of man- machine, machine – man interactions. Some of these artists and their work include:

Jeffrey Shaw’s ‘The Legible City’ (1988),

Mary Flanagan’s ‘Giant Joystick’(2006),

Leif Rumbke’s ‘Wargame’ (2005)

Jess Kilby’s ‘Center of the Universe (2007)



All these examples feature unconventional interface concepts with playfulness as a main design aim.


Bellow are key features in the above art installations which make them different from traditional interfaces:


– playful

– rich in connotative power and surprise

– custom-built, aware of regional and historical context

– critical


Jeffrey Shaw’s ‘The Legible City’ (1988), uses a man on a bicycle to navigate through a digital 3D environment. In his work a modified bicycle is an input device and an interface between user and 3D environment (Fuchs ect, 2013).

This is different from traditional interfaces and introduces playfulness to the users body (Fuchs ect, 2013). Mary Flanagan’s gigantic joystick is considered ‘ludic’ not only because it is more playful than a traditional mouse or keyboard but also because it makes a critical statement about the male dominated gaming culture due to the joysticks phallic appearance.


Traditional interfaces are designed keeping the following objectives in mind:


– effective

– universally applicable

– predictable

– globally available

– unaffected by regional or historical context


The authors of the article bring up an interesting point about framing ludicity among these interactions. “Is it the game where playfulness resides? Is it the interface, or is it encapsulated within the player’s attitude?” (Fuchs ect, 2013). Interfaces always have ludic potential as they are points between two systems.


“Ludic interfaces appropriate what we find in computer games, artistic

experiments, interactive media, media conversion, social networks and modding

cultures. These new and innovative interfaces offer tools that are adaptive to

cultural specifics and cultural change, and are sensitive to gender-related,

age-related and ethnic specificities,” (Fuchs ect, 2013).




“The Center of the Universe” Jess Kilby


Is a Ludic Interface Installation, the art project consists of a RFID tarot table, hand painted black with letters and signs drawn on it and a set of white cards containing radio- frequency tags. Hidden information in the blank cards allows tarot read (a digital RFID reader,) to interpret information hidden from the human eye. The project displays the information being picked up by the cards in the form of videos, which display frightening futures. According to the article the game could have easily been a Flash simulation or be built for a 2D monitor, but without the material ludic aspect of the game, the game wouldn’t really work. It’s the artist dressed as a fortune teller, the special lighting and the materiality of the game that makes it successful, (Fuchs ect, 2013).


Similarly with the giat joystick its success has a lot to do with its ludic features, its materiality, haptic features and erotic connotations, (Fuchs ect, 2013). More commentary on this project


Ludic Potential vs Lusory Attitude


“A wooden stick can be a toy. A stone can be a toy. A

cunningly-designed toy can be a toy – or it can not be a toy. It depends on whether the object is used playfully or not, (Fuchs ect, 2013).”


A stone or stick don’t have an inherent property of being a playful toy, what makes them toys is their application context. The authors of the article go on to give the following example, if you place a handful of legos in front of a child in European bedroom in the 70’s it’s a toy. Take the same bricks and drop them in front of a bunch of kids in ancient Egypt it’s a toy. But if both bricks were presented to a curator in Tokyo one would be a toy and one would be something else (Fuchs ect, 2013).”


Salen and Zimmerman the authors of “Rules of Play: Fundementals of Game Design” suggest that the main drivers for playfulness is the players capacity for a lusory attitude. Insuggesting this they are saying that an object becomes a toy when users decide to play with it. The dilemma the author of the article presents is that if it is suggested that playfulness is owned the object we cant explain what makes sticks and stones toys, and if it is said that playfulness is determined by the player than everything could be a toy. The way out of this problem the author suggests is that culture defines ludicity. “Culture owns the property of playfulness, or that play is constituted within culture,” (Fuchs ect, 2013).


Interface is the message


The article describes games as a rich field of codes and setups, in order to understand the hidden potential of interfaces.


Game / (system of rules)

= A player +physical or virtual objects to play with + regional and historical context to be played in


Meaning in the game can be found in the rules, or the role the player adopts in the game. “Another approach to find meaning is to interpret the interface between man and machine as a crucial element in producing ludic experience and ludic meaning,” (Fuchs ect, 2013).


These approaches are called:

  • –  ludocentric 
 –  role-based 
 –  socio-historical 
-  interface-led.5

According to the article Ludic Interfaces focus on deconstructing rules and roles and socially historical settings. Game Art will always focus on interface, or lack of interactivity with interface provided focusing on these factors allows artists to criticize commercial interface design and suggest alternatives. Ludic and Zero Interfaces are used by artists to oppose HCI concepts, (Fuchs ect, 2013), and to bring playfulness in the process of man – machine.


Leaving the Magic Circle


“Lusory Attitude” can be increased by the interface to the game. For example a joystick glues the gamers hand to any space fighter action game, and steerwheels feels good to gamers playing a race car game. But on the other hand a rocket launcher device wouldn’t make sense for a Barbie game (Fuchs ect, 2013). The article continues to explain the interface also shows people the rules of how to play, a player would know what to do with a device with a steering wheel and accelerator. But interfaces can also be limiting in their interactions such as the steering wheel wouldn’t allow for up and down movement on the z axis. We are always being controlled by interface restraints, “straight interfaces contain implicit rules where we least excpect them.” In contrast Ludic Interfaces oppose these aspects of straight interfaces by opening up the field of interactions.


“The subversive potential of interfaces must be looked for in the ludic interface solutions that artists and interface hacktivists develop. The area that extends beyond efficiency management, predictability and globalisation is where interface cultures will emerge that hold the key to custom-built, critical and playful interface devices for the future,” (Fuchs ect, 2013).


What are the rules and roles of Museums?

What is the Lusory Attitude of Children?

Designs for Learning and Ludic Engagement Staffan Selander

(A Summary of the Article)


  • Play can refer to both rule based and non rule based games
  • “In a way we can also say we play when we get involved in art, because we do it for no specific purpose,” (Selander, p 146, 2008).
  • Both children and adults can switch between ‘fictious’ and ‘real’ world.
  • Callois (1958) defines 4 types of play

Agon (competition) alea (chances)

Mimicry (role play) ilinx ( danger)


Playing with toys is also an elaboration of the virtual and the real. For the purpose of my research toy as discussed in this article refers to object, artefact/ interface


“To play with toys is also to learn about narratives and social relations,” (Selander, p 146, 2008).


Playing with toys is a way to scrutinize objects to discover what one can do with them.


“Play, playfulness and Imagination can in an overall perspective be understood as a process of engagement, transformations signs, meaning making, reflection and meta reflection,” (Selander, p 147, 2008).


Selander poses the question can “we see play as a way of systematic learning,” (Selander, p 147, 2008).


Selander mentions that learning seems to be about the ‘real’ world and not a fictious one, as in play.


Some psychologists and their focus of learning


Skinner learning—- Behavior

Piaget learning —— Cognitive thinking

Vygotsky learning —-(social interplay)/ Transition from pre language to after language thinking/ role of social interactions and role of artefacts


These learning theories have also influenced computer interface design and learning. The design of sophisticated computer games is a result of these learning theories and also emphasizes the importance of play and engagement


Knowledge and Learning


Knowledge is to engage in the world in a meaningful way, learning is the same but at an increased capacity.

Can also be said that learning and knowledge is the increased capacity of using an oreder of signs.



Designs for Learning


Designs for learning = a transformational process where engagement results in sign making and meaning making.


Selander presents ‘Designs for learning’ as a model can help identify the different decisions and steps in a meaning making process.


The transfprmation of signs to make new representation. This is the definition of learning that I keep coming across and it seems this is what the end goal should be of a playful ludic artifact expanding interface or activity.


“ Both play an dlearnign are possible to observe by focusing on the transformational process of ‘sign making’,” (Selander, p 148, 2008).



Institutional routines, rituals and norms can be redefined through a process of meaning making. This is something that can happen in both play and regular learning activities (Selander, 2008).


Free play is an important concept mentioned by the author as it relates more directly to my work, according to the article free play is full of narratives, signs, and symbols.


In a Learning Design Sequence, it is possible to understand in a play sequence, “ where different imaginations are combined and represented by signs symbols and artefacts,” (Selander, p 148, 2008).


Through the Learning Design Sequence several aspects of the situation can be revealed. Such as resources, interests of the player and social communication which starts and the transformation of knowledge and builds meaning making, each cycle linked to the next and the cycles can go in many different directions, (Selander, 2008).


The idea of the model (LDS) is based on the assumption that play and learning are a sign making meaning making process (Selander, 2008).


Transforming and Forming


Students seek and transform as they cut and paste things from the Internet, but also make new information with more active hands on activities, such as interviews, making music, making film, or making a 3d object, (Selander, 2008).


Selander also suggests that students test by ‘means of memisis’ which means acting out real life scenarios however this “performative” aspect to meaning making is underdeveloped.


“Predefined goals are the opposite of free purposeful play”


“learning design sequences show that learning is multimedia and multimodal”


“ Even if goals are defined and are in a clear frame the possible way to those goals may differ a lot”


Play and learning both relate to a process of Identity Formations. In play and learning we create different kinds of identities, such as citizen, youngster, older person, parent, worker, ect.


Play and Learning Ludic Engagment


Selander argues that both play and learning involve a transformational process. Where meaning making is achieved through engagement, signs and symbols and artefacts.


He concludes his article by saying that the demands for future learning design is for learning to be synonymous with more ludic activities as opposed to formal learning structures in schools. This would make learning be seen as a creative transformational process.


Therefore it requires “design thinking that is not restrained by a given frame instead sees potential for change and combines multileveled structures with relevance, transparency, aesthetics, personal connectedness and social action space,” (Selander, p 151, 2008).

The Crystal Robot Storyboard


  1. Crystal sees Robot
  2. Robot Sees crystal and turns on (vibrate or led)
  3. Crystal looks at robot and gives it commands to move
  4. Robot moves by itself seems like magic but its being controlled through mind control
  5. Robot and crystal can talk with each other we only see the machines output of this program which is led light pulses this mean that they are talking
  6. Child smiles
  7. Robot Laughs, they have maybe shared a joke (Initially I had thought that I would make the robot sad but I couldn’t find any footage of a sad telepathyish child)

Mbot Robot


I started visualizing my robot with a single servo motor just making a cardboard box go back and front. But I wanted the robot to be able to move, to go forwards and backwards. After speaking to technical help I realized that we don’t really have all the facilities at the university to go into robotics. So I ordered a Robot making kit online. My plan is to build the robot and combine its possible functions, with other functions using arduino and simple motors (like servo and vibrating motor).

The robot arrived I built it and began learning how to program it in a visual programming language used to teach kids in schools how to program called scratch. This robot uses a programming language which is based on scratch called mblock developed especially for the mblot robot. mBlock was quite easy to use and I quite quickly got the hang of it, I  did use some support from online tutorials although there were really only very few available.

My experience with mblot / scratch was good overall it took some time and every time I would set commands for the robot I would get glitches which I’m still just not sure why things with motors going in opposite directions (well motors going in opposite directions was because  they were attached wrong) but there were glitches that had to be corrected by mysefl just going back and forth, trying different commands. What was incredibly difficult about the robot was that its a relatively new software and doesn’t have that much support online, sometimes device drivers dont work on newer versions of mac os and sometimes they dont work on older versions, it took me two days to get the right driver on the school computers so that I could connect the robot to the machine through usb. I eventually found github instructions which told me to over write default mac settings in terminal through the computer auto recovery mode! Would not have been possible without our sessions with Gareth where we learned what terminal is. I ended up setting commands for the robot for a video that I would shoot to explain my idea. The robot was connected to my computer through blue tooth and different if key (button) pressed statements controlled the robot.

Screen Shot 2016-06-15 at 5.44.03 pm

I started experimenting with a few commands and the code for the end result became more complex (I hope)

Screen Shot 2016-06-21 at 1.07.09 pmScreen Shot 2016-06-21 at 1.07.15 pm

I wanted to use a vibration motor attached to the head of the robot to show laughter, the robot can laugh with the crystal children, the vibrating motor was a little tricky to solder but I managed to get it working using arduino and a button pin. But once the motor was attached to the head it wasn’t powerful enough to make the head shake. I tried getting a similar effect using a servo motor but it was just looking clumsy, so I programmed a quick back and front motion with the robots commands to make it look like the robot is laughing in the final video.



Crystal Children: Some Context


Screen Shot 2016-06-21 at 12.03.07 pm


This text is from, Virtue, Doreen, (2012) The Crystal Children, p 38 -56

These excerpts discuss an actual problem that I could work with for my tribe. Crystal children have trouble are late talkers.

This causes parents such as Penny in the above text concern and embarrassment, she feels like something is wrong with her kids

Some parents think that maybe their child has trouble with hearing or perhaps trouble with cognition and understanding

Crystal Children particularly when they are older feel isolated and different from others they are lonely

Their abilities can be developed or squelched


Social thing the Output – Robot Friend of Crystal Children

My thoughts at this point are to create a robot a friend of crystal children. This device can only be used by crystals it senses their presence and only turns on in the presence of a Crystal Child. Crystal children can give the robot commands through mind to mind communication no visible action takes place the robot only mysteriously carries out these crystal childs commands.  And can have mind to mind conversations with the crystal child which we can only see as an output of a machine performing a function. This is because its important for this fictional object to be for the crystal children and not as a tool for translating the crystal child. The robot will also display emotional responses to the child it can feel what the crystal child is feeling and in doing so the child and robot build a bond.

These functions of the Robot will allow parents to see that their children are special, can understand and communicate (since they give tasks to the robot).

And also the robot helps the kids feel supported in their special needs, further develop their skills and is a friend to them in a world where maybe not many would be able to understand why they are the way they are.


Making the Robot Laugh

I want to attach a vibration motor to the head of the robot. This will be the robots emotional response. It will make it seem as though the robot is laughing.

Bellow is a vibrating motor that was purchased from amazon it it was a bit tricky to use cause the wires are a bit short and needed some soldering. It also needed this orange thing which adjusts voltage as this motor wont work with the power supplied just from the arduino. Had some help from Gareth and run two different codes to this one which just vibrates, and one which vibrates but is controlled with a button.



Getting Started with Electronics

IMG_9490 copy

I began visualizing this robot by using a servo and some cardboard, the servo would move the cardboard box to different degrees and this would mean that its saying something.

I used the bellow code from Tom’s presentation and this was sort of a first step into looking at arduino really on my own because previously I had worked always in a group and sort of stayed in the background and observed things being put together.

I found from problem solving and getting this simple motor to work that things are a lot easier than they look all those wires coming out of Arduinos look more complicated than they are. Its really just a bunch of simple commands put together (i hope).