Background. Several HCI researchers have started to use game design elements in their research to create playful methods for involving end-users in design. Similar to serious games, such research games serve a dual purpose: 1) to create an enjoyable experience for research participants, and 2) to collect user insights to inform the design process. Aim. We propose that the Serious Game Design Assessment (SGDA) Framework, that evaluates both a game’s enjoyable purposes and its serious purposes, may be a valuable tool in assessing and developing research games. In this article, we apply the SGDA Framework to three existing research games, one involving train passengers in assessing potential future user experiences, one involving hospital staff in ideation for wearable technology, and one involving TV viewers in ideation for future video watching scenarios. Conclusion. The assessment of the three research games suggests that the framework is indeed applicable to research games and may, as such, provide HCI researchers with clear guidance when creating new research games.

@en

BACKGROUND: Designers develop their basic competences during their design education and these competences are later amplified and refined during their professional career. Therefore, one could expect that the design processes of professionals and of student designers are conducted differently, and that these processes consist of different components (steps, actions, methods, tools, etc. used in the design process). OBJECTIVE: The differences and similarities between the design processes of design students and professionals were studied. In addition the effect of the designers experience on the design process is studied. METHODS: The design processes of seating products of 19 professional designers, 15 master students and 16 bachelor students were compared in order to understand the differences in the components they apply in their design process. RESULTS: The results showed significant differences between professional designers and design students for eight out of fifteen of the components. The components for which differences were found were applied more frequently by professionals than by students. For six of the components significant positive correlations were found with the designer's experience. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between the design processes of design students as well as similarities. The differences amongst others related to the designers' experience.@en