Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
Cool, thanks for the clarification. I'm not in anyway, shape or form against ramifying Sugar contributions, activities, whatever. Just wanna make sure that its done thoughtfully if and when it happens On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 07:14:27AM -0400, STEPHEN JACOBS wrote: >> The documentation doesn't really address the context, purpose, goals or >> implementation of gamification beyond the fact that there should be hooks in >> the sugar network to support it. >> >> The seemingly arbitrary metaphor (sun, star, moon etc ) and the reference to >> points suggests that this is abstracted away from what the user actually >> does in the system as does the reference to points without a discussion of >> what they are for or how they work. >> >> Research shows that Gamification that is not thoughtfully designed and >> implemented may have a bump of interest in the short term but gets ignored, >> becomes an annoyance, or actually a disincentive to participation in the >> longer term. >> >> IMO, If the Sugar community wants this network to be gamified it needs more >> thinking and design work before that functionality is implemented. > > Sorry if my original post about gamification was misleading, Sugar > Network is not designed to implement gamification obligatory. Sugar > Network is exactly about core functionality I mentioned in my previous > post. > > For sure, gamification requires more thinking and system approach. And > for me it is absolutely clear, it should be pluggable feature in Sugar > Network (in some cases it will work as supposed, in others it will only > an obstacle to do regular daily work). > > -- > Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 07:14:27AM -0400, STEPHEN JACOBS wrote: > The documentation doesn't really address the context, purpose, goals or > implementation of gamification beyond the fact that there should be hooks in > the sugar network to support it. > > The seemingly arbitrary metaphor (sun, star, moon etc ) and the reference to > points suggests that this is abstracted away from what the user actually does > in the system as does the reference to points without a discussion of what > they are for or how they work. > > Research shows that Gamification that is not thoughtfully designed and > implemented may have a bump of interest in the short term but gets ignored, > becomes an annoyance, or actually a disincentive to participation in the > longer term. > > IMO, If the Sugar community wants this network to be gamified it needs more > thinking and design work before that functionality is implemented. Sorry if my original post about gamification was misleading, Sugar Network is not designed to implement gamification obligatory. Sugar Network is exactly about core functionality I mentioned in my previous post. For sure, gamification requires more thinking and system approach. And for me it is absolutely clear, it should be pluggable feature in Sugar Network (in some cases it will work as supposed, in others it will only an obstacle to do regular daily work). -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
2012/6/7 STEPHEN JACOBS > The documentation doesn't really address the context, purpose, goals or > implementation of gamification beyond the fact that there should be hooks > in the sugar network to support it. > > The seemingly arbitrary metaphor (sun, star, moon etc ) and the reference > to points suggests that this is abstracted away from what the user actually > does in the system as does the reference to points without a discussion of > what they are for or how they work. > > Research shows that Gamification that is not thoughtfully designed and > implemented may have a bump of interest in the short term but gets > ignored, becomes an annoyance, or actually a disincentive to participation > in the longer term. > > IMO, If the Sugar community wants this network to be gamified it needs > more thinking and design work before that functionality is implemented. > > Sent from my iPhone > > As we plan to start activating the network on a local "controlled" pilot we could certainly use some help defining the functionality of basic mechanisms for initial iteration. On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:04:36PM -0500, Sebastian Silva wrote: >> /* en español abajo */ >> Hi, >> One proposal to evidence the value of "interactions" within the Sugar Network >> user interface is to count, for each context, and to show them in the interface >> as such: >> >> 1 interaction = 1 "Sun" badge >> >> This is to continue with the icons "Star" - "Moon" - "Sun". >> >> To better understand this in reference to Sugar Network, with "interactions" we >> mean contributions of feedback or support resources users provide within the >> network. >> >> Not every interaction has been implemented graphically yet but for reference >> here are the high level conceptual documentation: >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Network/Concept >> >> And the low level Objects Model that sustains it at this time: >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Platform_Team/Sugar_Network/Objects_model >> >> Feedback at this point is appreciated as we prepare to launch at scale. >> >> Regards, >> Sebastian > > In fact, regarding Sugar Network, my original post was rather about > popping up this subject (and it seems I missed the fast that it is > already was well discussed) and less about doing something particular. > > But for Sugar Network in particular. I'm sure the core functionality > that SN is assumed to provide (content/social/support network to connect > offline and online people) is much more important than any [current] > trend. And before trying to implement such high level features like > gamification moments, SN should be mature enough to do its core > functionality on reliable basis. > > The problem with gammification (as was already mentioned), it is just > one of possible ways and have its own props and contras. And it will be > more useful to design SN in the way that there is core functionality > and a bunch of high level solutions that implement one of education > metaphor. > > In fact, there is already such model when there is a SN server and > it is possible to implement any client application. But I think it will > be more useful to have default client application that provides only > core functionality (i.e., pure technical possibility without forcing > particular model). As a useful addition, such default client application > might support applying a kind of skins on top of it to implement > particular education metaphor (I guess it will be useful during the > educational process to switch between several models). > > -- > Aleksey > > ___ > > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Laura V. I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org @Lima 9898--7 Skype acaire IRC kaametza ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
The documentation doesn't really address the context, purpose, goals or implementation of gamification beyond the fact that there should be hooks in the sugar network to support it. The seemingly arbitrary metaphor (sun, star, moon etc ) and the reference to points suggests that this is abstracted away from what the user actually does in the system as does the reference to points without a discussion of what they are for or how they work. Research shows that Gamification that is not thoughtfully designed and implemented may have a bump of interest in the short term but gets ignored, becomes an annoyance, or actually a disincentive to participation in the longer term. IMO, If the Sugar community wants this network to be gamified it needs more thinking and design work before that functionality is implemented. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:04:36PM -0500, Sebastian Silva wrote: >> /* en español abajo */ >> Hi, >> One proposal to evidence the value of "interactions" within the Sugar Network >> user interface is to count, for each context, and to show them in the >> interface >> as such: >> >> 1 interaction = 1 "Sun" badge >> >> This is to continue with the icons "Star" - "Moon" - "Sun". >> >> To better understand this in reference to Sugar Network, with "interactions" >> we >> mean contributions of feedback or support resources users provide within the >> network. >> >> Not every interaction has been implemented graphically yet but for reference >> here are the high level conceptual documentation: >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Network/Concept >> >> And the low level Objects Model that sustains it at this time: >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Platform_Team/Sugar_Network/Objects_model >> >> Feedback at this point is appreciated as we prepare to launch at scale. >> >> Regards, >> Sebastian > > In fact, regarding Sugar Network, my original post was rather about > popping up this subject (and it seems I missed the fast that it is > already was well discussed) and less about doing something particular. > > But for Sugar Network in particular. I'm sure the core functionality > that SN is assumed to provide (content/social/support network to connect > offline and online people) is much more important than any [current] > trend. And before trying to implement such high level features like > gamification moments, SN should be mature enough to do its core > functionality on reliable basis. > > The problem with gammification (as was already mentioned), it is just > one of possible ways and have its own props and contras. And it will be > more useful to design SN in the way that there is core functionality > and a bunch of high level solutions that implement one of education > metaphor. > > In fact, there is already such model when there is a SN server and > it is possible to implement any client application. But I think it will > be more useful to have default client application that provides only > core functionality (i.e., pure technical possibility without forcing > particular model). As a useful addition, such default client application > might support applying a kind of skins on top of it to implement > particular education metaphor (I guess it will be useful during the > educational process to switch between several models). > > -- > Aleksey > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:04:36PM -0500, Sebastian Silva wrote: > /* en español abajo */ > Hi, > One proposal to evidence the value of "interactions" within the Sugar Network > user interface is to count, for each context, and to show them in the > interface > as such: > > 1 interaction = 1 "Sun" badge > > This is to continue with the icons "Star" - "Moon" - "Sun". > > To better understand this in reference to Sugar Network, with "interactions" > we > mean contributions of feedback or support resources users provide within the > network. > > Not every interaction has been implemented graphically yet but for reference > here are the high level conceptual documentation: > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Network/Concept > > And the low level Objects Model that sustains it at this time: > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Platform_Team/Sugar_Network/Objects_model > > Feedback at this point is appreciated as we prepare to launch at scale. > > Regards, > Sebastian In fact, regarding Sugar Network, my original post was rather about popping up this subject (and it seems I missed the fast that it is already was well discussed) and less about doing something particular. But for Sugar Network in particular. I'm sure the core functionality that SN is assumed to provide (content/social/support network to connect offline and online people) is much more important than any [current] trend. And before trying to implement such high level features like gamification moments, SN should be mature enough to do its core functionality on reliable basis. The problem with gammification (as was already mentioned), it is just one of possible ways and have its own props and contras. And it will be more useful to design SN in the way that there is core functionality and a bunch of high level solutions that implement one of education metaphor. In fact, there is already such model when there is a SN server and it is possible to implement any client application. But I think it will be more useful to have default client application that provides only core functionality (i.e., pure technical possibility without forcing particular model). As a useful addition, such default client application might support applying a kind of skins on top of it to implement particular education metaphor (I guess it will be useful during the educational process to switch between several models). -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
/* en español abajo */ Hi, One proposal to evidence the value of "interactions" within the Sugar Network user interface is to count, for each context, and to show them in the interface as such: 1 interaction = 1 "Sun" badge This is to continue with the icons "Star" - "Moon" - "Sun". To better understand this in reference to Sugar Network, with "interactions" we mean contributions of feedback or support resources users provide within the network. Not every interaction has been implemented graphically yet but for reference here are the high level conceptual documentation: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Network/Concept And the low level Objects Model that sustains it at this time: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Platform_Team/Sugar_Network/Objects_model Feedback at this point is appreciated as we prepare to launch at scale. Regards, Sebastian /* Español */ Hola, Una propuesta para evidenciar el valor de las "interacciones" dentro de la interfase de usuario Red Azúcar es contarlos, para cada contexto y mostrarlos: 1 interacción = 1 medalla "Sol" Esto sería consistente con los íconos "Estrella" - "Luna" y "Sol". Para mejor entender esto en relación con la Red Azúcar, por "interacción" nos referimos a las contribuciones en recursos de retroalimentacion y soporte que los usuarios proveen dentro de la red. Todavía no hemos implementado todas las interacciones graficamente pero aquí está la documentación de nivel conceptual: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Network/Concept Y aquí el Modelo de Objetos tecnológico que los sustenta en este momento: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Platform_Team/Sugar_Network/Objects_model La retroalimentación en este punto es apreciada mientras nos preparamos para un lanzamiento a gran escala. Saludos Sebastian On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:31:13 -0500 Laura Vargas wrote: > > An alternative paradigm is that of evolutionary game theory: People are > ascribed a certain “type” that defines their behavior, which they proceed to > change by imitating their more successful neighbors. This approach results > in an adaptation dynamic that mimics that of natural selection. > > In order to achieve interactions (main metric) it is of vital important to > clearly define the main goal / problem to solve (as Stephen notes, the > motivation) of the "game" presented to the players. > > Once main (common or individual) goal is defined, "gammification" (the > incorporation of specific mechanisms, ie reputation) should become an > iterative process (measuring impact over main metric) aiming to influence > players behavior to achieve such goal. > > As a multi-agent system (MAS) composed of multiple interacting intelligent > agents (players) within an environment (Sugar and Sugar Activities), the > point of naming first client "improve the system" was precisely to clearly > state there is a main common goal for players to achieve. > -- Sebastian Silva ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
2012/5/30 STEPHEN JACOBS > 1. As regards tech, I'd suggest Open Badges as a good way to go here. > Being implemented for the Fedora team by folks local to RIT, so we could > probably help there. > 2. As regards Gamification, especially for education, there's a lot more > there than just issuing points and badges. It requires a deep dive into > intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, goals for what Sugar Labs wants out of it, > a look at the cultural impacts within the varied locals in which its being > implemented yadda yadda yadda. Bad ramification boomerangs back and leaves > you worse off than you were before. > An alternative paradigm is that of evolutionary game theory: People are ascribed a certain “type” that defines their behavior, which they proceed to change by imitating their more successful neighbors. This approach results in an adaptation dynamic that mimics that of natural selection. In order to achieve interactions (main metric) it is of vital important to clearly define the main goal / problem to solve (as Stephen notes, the motivation) of the "game" presented to the players. Once main (common or individual) goal is defined, "gammification" (the incorporation of specific mechanisms, ie reputation) should become an iterative process (measuring impact over main metric) aiming to influence players behavior to achieve such goal. As a multi-agent system (MAS) composed of multiple interacting intelligent agents (players) within an environment (Sugar and Sugar Activities), the point of naming first client "improve the system" was precisely to clearly state there is a main common goal for players to achieve. > On May 30, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Van Assche > wrote: > >> Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even > >> screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it > with > >> quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after > that > >> on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something > online > >> about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step > in the > >> Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, > as it > >> probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. > >> > >> kind regards > >> > >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all! > >>> > >>> It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar > >>> Network (pretty initial like "Players" instead of "Users" or Roles, and > >>> absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) > >>> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 > >>> > >>> In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM > >>> (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural > for > >>> systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and > >>> collaborative work on content. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Aleksey > >>> ___ > >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > >> > >> > > > > As I recall, the design team never settled its differences in terms of > > how this would work, but we could readily build the back end for > > accumulating badges/milestones/... in a standard way and those > > activity developers who chose to use these mechanism can do so. In the > > meantime, it was proposed to have a badges activity. > > > > (I will try to dig up the conversation threads and feature pages so we > > don't have to repeat the same conversations.) > > > > regards. > > > > -walter > > > > -- > > Walter Bender > > Sugar Labs > > http://www.sugarlabs.org > > ___ > > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > -- Laura V. I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org @Lima 9898--7 Skype acaire IRC kaametza ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, STEPHEN JACOBS wrote: > 1. As regards tech, I'd suggest Open Badges as a good way to go here. Being > implemented for the Fedora team by folks local to RIT, so we could probably > help there. > 2. As regards Gamification, especially for education, there's a lot more > there than just issuing points and badges. It requires a deep dive into > intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, goals for what Sugar Labs wants out of it, a > look at the cultural impacts within the varied locals in which its being > implemented yadda yadda yadda. Bad ramification boomerangs back and leaves > you worse off than you were before. This (2) is why the learning team has been lukewarm about the idea. Nonetheless, in the spirit of "making learning visible", in contrast to explicitly rewarding or motivating learning, these data collections can be of real value. My problem with several of the proposals I had seen re convenient-for-the-developer means of gathering data, typically from outside of Sugar itself, leave me feeling dissatisfied. We want data that the learner can see. -walter > On May 30, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Van Assche >> wrote: >>> Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even >>> screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with >>> quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that >>> on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online >>> about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the >>> Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it >>> probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. >>> >>> kind regards >>> >>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: Hi all! It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar Network (pretty initial like "Players" instead of "Users" or Roles, and absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and collaborative work on content. -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >>> >>> >> >> As I recall, the design team never settled its differences in terms of >> how this would work, but we could readily build the back end for >> accumulating badges/milestones/... in a standard way and those >> activity developers who chose to use these mechanism can do so. In the >> meantime, it was proposed to have a badges activity. >> >> (I will try to dig up the conversation threads and feature pages so we >> don't have to repeat the same conversations.) >> >> regards. >> >> -walter >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> ___ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
1. As regards tech, I'd suggest Open Badges as a good way to go here. Being implemented for the Fedora team by folks local to RIT, so we could probably help there. 2. As regards Gamification, especially for education, there's a lot more there than just issuing points and badges. It requires a deep dive into intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, goals for what Sugar Labs wants out of it, a look at the cultural impacts within the varied locals in which its being implemented yadda yadda yadda. Bad ramification boomerangs back and leaves you worse off than you were before. On May 30, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Van Assche > wrote: >> Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even >> screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with >> quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that >> on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online >> about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the >> Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it >> probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. >> >> kind regards >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: >>> >>> Hi all! >>> >>> It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar >>> Network (pretty initial like "Players" instead of "Users" or Roles, and >>> absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 >>> >>> In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM >>> (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for >>> systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and >>> collaborative work on content. >>> >>> -- >>> Aleksey >>> ___ >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> >> > > As I recall, the design team never settled its differences in terms of > how this would work, but we could readily build the back end for > accumulating badges/milestones/... in a standard way and those > activity developers who chose to use these mechanism can do so. In the > meantime, it was proposed to have a badges activity. > > (I will try to dig up the conversation threads and feature pages so we > don't have to repeat the same conversations.) > > regards. > > -walter > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Van Assche wrote: > Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even > screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with > quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that > on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online > about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the > Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it > probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. > > kind regards > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: >> >> Hi all! >> >> It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar >> Network (pretty initial like "Players" instead of "Users" or Roles, and >> absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 >> >> In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM >> (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for >> systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and >> collaborative work on content. >> >> -- >> Aleksey >> ___ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > As I recall, the design team never settled its differences in terms of how this would work, but we could readily build the back end for accumulating badges/milestones/... in a standard way and those activity developers who chose to use these mechanism can do so. In the meantime, it was proposed to have a badges activity. (I will try to dig up the conversation threads and feature pages so we don't have to repeat the same conversations.) regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. kind regards On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: > Hi all! > > It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar > Network (pretty initial like "Players" instead of "Users" or Roles, and > absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 > > In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM > (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for > systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and > collaborative work on content. > > -- > Aleksey > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
