OK, I got excited. I started to actually enjoy playing the game. Take a moment to understand the significance of this statement. The game was triggering the "challenge chip" inside my head. That is, the game was difficult enough to make me concentrate, but not so difficult that I got frustrated and gave up. This made me want to find some people to show the game to. I went to the Studio lab and starting grabbing people saying "Come here, take a look at this." It is my opinion that one can only be considered a "designer" when you build something which makes you want to try it out with people and (this is important) you want to earnestly find out if you are on the right track. It reminds me of the times that as an elementary classroom teacher I had thought of something clever for a lesson and really looked forward to getting into the classroom with my students to to see what their reactions would be. All too often, I see many people build something and then are so protective of it that they are actually offended if a typical user doesn't "get it" right away. One of the advantages of having the attitude of "I am only building a prototype" is that you know you can change directions quickly based on what happens when people actually use the stuff.

I made only one significant modification to the prototype before showing it to folks -- I modified it so that that roadway only appeared in the "front view" box (i.e. I hid the edges of the roadway outside of this screen box. (This modification took only about 15 minutes.)

Most of the people in the lab were Studio students who already heard me talk about my little project, but had never seen any tangible evidence of it. So those I pulled by the arm to the computer where I had it set up were going to get their first real dose of "Nowhere Road - The Game".

I appreciate the significance of a product's "intraocular test of validity" -- whether or not it strikes someone "right between the eyes" as significant (or cool) enough to be worth their time. Not all products are subject to this test, but I think this game is. If it doesn't strike folks within the first 10 seconds or so that it ought to be explored, they will drop it and move on with their life. I also realize how my own enthusiasm might unfairly bias a person's perception of the product. So, I was mindful not to ruin the moment. But hey, it's only a first try for a handful of people -- no need to get too intellectual.

So, what did I find out?

First of all, I really felt that the individuals who tried it out were not trying to please me. The reason is that as they started to play the game, a gush of ideas started to flow about how to improve the game. Yet, they really showed all the typical non-verbal cues associated with having fun, such as lots of smiles. Let's face it, the idea of going on a bicycle ride on Nowhere Road is rather disarming. The very thought of it is both fun and mildly eccentric. Plus, the atmosphere was informal enough to suggest to everyone that nothing was 'at stake' if they noticed problems. Everyone knew this was "only a prototype".

But, the fact that they were willing to make lots of suggestions meant that they weren't just trying to placate 'the professor'. There were also many places where confusion arose. Here is a quick summary of the suggestions and 'trouble spots':

1. One of my biggest concerns was whether the animated roadway would trigger the illusion of a first-person view of riding down the road on a bike. Although the graphics are very crude at this point, this illusion seemed to be sufficiently instantiated. I was also concerned about the keyboard interface. But, the reaction to the interface, and the performance of the individuals as they tried to 'pedal' and 'steer' at the same time was generally positive. However, it is clear that the curves happen too abruptly in places. I need to find a way to communicate to the player what lies ahead on the road.
2. Not surprisingly, the hill gauge was only useful after I explained it thoroughly to the player. I need to find an effective way to communicate the terrain to the player.
3. The roadway graphic generated lots of comments. I know that it is crude. But some really useful suggestions were generated, such as improving the illusion of a horizon -- perhaps just by adding some "green grass" and a blue sky (maybe with some clouds). Great idea!
4. One person was obviously confused with the map. The red dot doesn't move very fast at first. This person thought that the goal was to go home -- that is, travel North from the UGA campus to my house on Nowhere Road. I need to think about ways to communicate better the message 'you are here' on the map.
5. The graphic of the "dog repellent" bottle generated lots of comments. Good. Plus everyone seemed to enjoy hearing my ideas about how to depict "mean country dogs" challenging the biker and how one might use the dog repellent to ward them off. Everybody is anxious to see those dogs! Good stuff for intrinsic motivation here.
6. I had some good conversations about the overall screen design with one individual (OK, it was Rob Branch). Hey, he's an expert in this area, so I'd be a fool not to listen carefully. Our conversation covered an amazing amount of ground, from the position and manipulation of basic screen elements (including the yet-to-be-added feature of gear shifting), to the pros and cons of using frames with and without borders. Needless to say, he gave me lots to think about (yet without making me feel as though anything was actually wrong!).
7. Rob and I also talked about the need for a better graphic of the handlebars. I constructed this in about 2 minutes with Authorware's basic graphic tools just to get something on the screen, so it is not surprising that others did not immediately recognize this graphic. I definitely will improve this for the next prototype. Rob felt it was important to change the angle of the view so that at least the front tire was displayed, so as to improve the first-person illusion. (BTW, Rob also bikes to work frequently.)