Principles of environmental and social psychology in UI/UX design for metaverse social games: A case study of Horizon Worlds
Vol 9, Issue 1, 2024, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 473 (Abstract) 371 (PDF)
Abstract
Design psychology and environmental and social psychology are two independent yet interconnected fields. This paper aims to integrate these fields and explore their application in user interface/user experience (UI/UX) design for metaverse social games. The principles of design psychology help understand users’ cognitive and emotional needs, enabling the creation of user-friendly interfaces and interaction designs. On the other hand, principles of environmental and social psychology provide insights into how environmental and social factors influence user behavior and psychological states. Building upon the importance and application of design psychology principles in UI/UX design, we delve into the specific environmental and social psychology factors that impact UI/UX design in metaverse social games. As a virtual global social platform, the metaverse necessitates designers to consider users’ social needs, identity expression, and personal interactions, in order to create an immersive and authentic virtual social experience. Through an in-depth analysis of Zuckerberg’s “Horizon Worlds” and its UI/UX design, we explore the comprehensive application of design psychology and environmental and social psychology principles in metaverse social games. We examine aspects such as usability, personalization, social interaction, and emotional connection in UI/UX design and discuss how visual elements, sound effects, and interactive feedback can facilitate the establishment of emotional connections and social networks within the virtual world. This research aims to provide designers with deeper insights and guidance in creating metaverse social game interfaces that align with user needs and societal adaptability. It will further expand the theoretical foundation of UI/UX design for metaverse social games and serve as a case study and reference for empirical research on the application of environmental and social psychology in game interface design.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Jiang W, Zhang M, Jie shi R, Jiang Y. User interface design in technology service platform of performance equipments Yanna. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Joint International Mechanical, Electronic and Information Technology Conference; 18–20 December 2015; Chongqing, China.
2. Björk S, Holopainen J. Games and design patterns. In: Tekinbas KS, Zimmerman E (editors). The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. The MIT Press; 2005. pp. 410–437.
3. Albert W, Tullis T. Measuring the User Experience. Morgan Kaufmann; 2010.
4. Forlizzi J, Ford S. The building blocks of experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques; 17–19 August 2000; New York, USA.
5. Tidwell J. Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design. O’Reilly Media; Inc.; 2010.
6. Brondi R, Alem L, Avveduto G, et al. Evaluating the impact of highly immersive technologies and natural interaction on player engagement and flow experience in games. In: Chorianopoulos K, Divitini M, Baalsrud Hauge J, et al. (editors). Entertainment Computing-ICEC 2015, Proceedings of 14th International Conference, ICEC 2015; 29 September–2 Ocotober 2015; Trondheim, Norway. Springer-Verlag; 2015.
7. Zhou Y. Development and application research of design psychology (Chinese). Science and Technology Innovation 2015; 11: 38. doi: 10.15913/j.cnki.kjycx.2015.11.038.
8. McGuffin M. Fitts’ law and expanding targets: An experimental study and applications to user interface design. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 2002; Unpublished work.
9. Hussain M, Park J, Kim HK. Effects of interaction method, size, and distance to object on augmented reality interfaces. Interacting with Computers 2023; 35(1): 1–11. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwad034
10. Feigenbaum EA, Simon HA. A theory of the serial position effect. British Journal of Psychology 1962; 53(3): 307–320. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1962.tb00836.x
11. Mantonakis A, Rodero P, Lesschaeve I, Hastie R. Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science 2009; 20(11): 1309–1312. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02453.x
12. Teichner WH, Krebs MJ. Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review 1974; 81(1): 75–98. doi: 10.1037/h0035867
13. Proctor RW, Schneider DW. Hick’s law for choice reaction time: A review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2018; 71(6): 1281–1299. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1322622
14. Sigman M, Cecchi GA, Gilbert CD, Magnasco MO. On a common circle: Natural scenes and Gestalt rules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2001; 98(4): 1935–1940. doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.4.1935
15. Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review 1989; 14(1): 20–39. doi: 10.2307/258189
16. Ellemers N, Kortekaas P, Ouwerkerk JW. Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology 1999; 29(2–3): 371–389. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U
17. Ellemers N, De Gilder D, Haslam SA. Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. The Academy of Management Review 2004; 29(3): 459. doi: 10.2307/20159054
18. Hogg MA. Social identity theory. In: McKeown S, Haji R, Ferguson N (editors). Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory. Springer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 3–17.
19. Young HP. The evolution of social norms. Annual Review of Economics 2015; 7(1): 359–387. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322
20. Bergquist M, Nilsson A. The DOs and DON’Ts in social norms: A descriptive don’t-norm increases conformity. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology 2019; 3(3): 158–166. doi: 10.1002/jts5.43
21. Turner JC. Social Influence. Cengage Learning; 1991.
22. Rashotte L. Social influence. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology 2007. doi: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoss154
23. Poole MS, Seibold DR, McPhee RD. Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech 1985; 71(1): 74–102. doi: 10.1080/00335638509383719
24. Steuer, J.,Biocca F, Levy MR. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. In: Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality. Routledge; 1995.
25. Sadowski W, Stanney K. Presence in virtual environments. In: Stanney KM (editor). Handbook of Virtual Environments. CRC Press; 2002. pp. 831–846.
26. Lee H, Lee J, Kim C, et al. Brain process for perception of the “out of the body” tactile illusion for virtual object interaction. Sensors 2015; 15(4): 7913–7932. doi: 10.3390/s150407913
27. Facebook’s virtual reality platform, horizon worlds, now available to everyone in the U.S. and Canada. Available online: https://coincodex.com/article/13118/facebooks-virtual-reality-platform-horizon-worlds-now-available-to-everyone-in-the-us-and-canada/ (accessed on 16 June 2023).
28. William R. How to play horizon worlds VR: Everything you need to know! Available online: https://arvrtips.com/facebook-worlds/#wing-strikers (accessed on 16 June 2023).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i1.1871
(473 Abstract Views, 371 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Biao Gao, Huiqin Xie, Yiming Wang, Zhanglin Xie
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/