Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3701571.3701584acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewFull TextPublication PagesmumConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Guidelines for Disc Golf Applications and Design Principles for SportsHCI: A Human-Centered Approach

Published: 02 December 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Disc Golf is becoming a popular sport in Scandinavia and the USA. However, there is a shortage of information technology resources and design expertise, particularly regarding users and stakeholders. Modern applications should prioritize user experience, adhere to high ethical standards—including sustainability and value-sensitivity—and encourage value co-creation with all involved. To gain a deeper understanding of the disc golf application domain, we conducted three studies using Human-Centered Design (HCD) methodology: an online survey (n=94), three contextual inquiries (n=3), and an application design process (n=23), totaling 120 players and stakeholders. Based on our literature review and empirical studies, we developed a set of design guidelines for disc golf applications. Additionally, we generalized these findings to propose foundational design principles for SportsHCI. These principles facilitate robust design integrity and incorporate core concepts of HCD, guiding practitioners toward more human-centric design.

1 Introduction

Digitalization has brought about lasting changes to society and our daily lives [44], including the realm of exercise and sports. Technological advancements are mainly thought as given opportunities and possible competitive advantages; it is even proposed that by 2030 technology will remarkably shape athletes, consumers, and managers – the three user groups in sports [18]. The field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) has focused on sports digitalization, now known as SportsHCI [15, 53]. However, SportsHCI lacks essential design knowledge, including frameworks, principles and guidelines [53]. Without well-tested design methods, technology hype can be misleading, or progress may be delayed. By deeply engaging with Disc Golf (DG), this paper aims to enhance DG digitalization through specific guidelines and contribute to SportsHCI with broader design principles.
DG is one of the fastest growing sports [48], particularly in the USA [62], Finland [16, 72], Sweden [70], and Norway [62]. In Finland, for example, one in five adults is interested in DG. Among those aged 15-24, it is even more popular, with 42% participating in the sport. Additionally, DG ranks third among the most popular sports for boys aged 11-15, behind only football and cycling [16].
The disc golf industry is currently undergoing a digital transformation. Players, local clubs, national associations, and the Professional Disc Golf Association (PDGA) now communicate via digital solutions, while DG companies develop data-driven and digital business strategies. Several DG applications have also entered the market. Some of these are mandatory for use in competitions but lack even the basic features and suffer from usability issues. Others are more commonly used for training, and in casual playing with friends.
DG application users face a complex landscape, marked by competing stakeholder interests, varying levels of expertise among application providers, and limited functionality. This has resulted in poor usability and feature gaps, frustrating DG players. Despite these issues, in Finland, several applications are required for scorekeeping in official competitions. Furthermore, research on DG is still limited due to the novelty of DG as a sport. Its digital culture is still quite new, resulting in a lack of academic studies on DG application design. However, DG appears to be an ideal candidate for Human-Centered Design (HCD) (see e.g., [24]) due to its growing popularity as a sport and prevalent issues with current applications.
According to a leading field expert organization [25], when designing wellness and health applications, users should be offered a smooth User Experience (UX) where the user is in control and user is guided to perform critical tasks. The application should also motivate and challenge users to become better players [25]. Today’s DG applications are not designed solely for players; several other stakeholders are involved. To achieve comprehensive results in application design, all key stakeholders should participate [43, 76]. In the DG context, together with the players, e.g., PDGA, national associations, local clubs, and tournament directors should be noticed and consulted. To support high usability and a positive UX, best practices such as HCD and User-Centered Design (UCD) should be followed [9, 75].
In Mobile Health (mHealth), several studies have proposed and evaluated design frameworks, guidelines, and principles (see e.g., [75]). However, in SportsHCI, including DG, there is a noticeable lack of research on this topic. Our research aims to fill this gap, by contributing valuable design guidelines specific to DG, as well as to the broader field of HCI, benefitting both DG players and the SportsHCI community.
One of the biggest challenges in IT projects is failure caused by poorly communicated requirements [28]. To overcome this, it is recommended to clearly formulate design principles to improve digital innovation practices [28]. When answering this design call from the DG ecosystem’s perspective, we follow suggested best practices [28, 61] to develop design principles. For instance, we provide clear instructions and a real-life example from the disc golf world for each principle. In video game design, principles developed in this way have been used not only for design but also as tools for identifying problems and evaluating user experiences [61].
For addressing the identified research gap, we ask the following research questions: RQ1: What design principles should be utilized in the SportsHCI field? RQ1A: What kind of guidelines can be found from the existing literature for disc golf application design? RQ1B: What kind of design guidelines can be found from empirical research in the disc golf application context? To address the research questions, we conducted a narrative literature review and empirical research using the HCD methodology, incorporating methods like observation, interviews, questionnaires, and contextual inquiries.
This paper contributes to the fields of SportsHCI and HCD by proposing compressed design principles for human-, user- and stakeholder-centered application design in the context of SportsHCI and DG. For DG world, we present design guidelines aiming to build a bridge that unites DG organizations, the broader disc golf industry, and application users into a cohesive ecosystem. This approach is designed to enhance the development and delivery of advanced, human-centric applications, ultimately leading to a more satisfying experience for all involved. Moreover, by generalizing the design guidelines our objective is to gather the core concepts of HCD, such as usability, UX, service-dominant logic, value-sensitiveness, and the context of design – for proposing comprehensive design principles for SportsHCI.

2 Related work

Design is the driving force that implements creative thoughts, in manners, such as producing sketches and plans [24]. Roots of the HCD tree were planted already in the 1980s, when Gould and Lewis suggested their principles for early focus on users and their tasks, empirically measuring the usage, and having multiple iterations [26].

2.1 Human-Centered Design

HCD approach aims to create design solutions that prioritize the intended user Expectations, Needs, and Wishes (ENW) [24], resulting in products that are intuitive, easy to use, and meaningful [24, 66]. Over time, additional frameworks like UCD emphasize the user’s role [9, 75], Stakeholder-Centered Design (SCD) involves continuous stakeholder participation [68], and Value Sensitive Design (VSD) incorporates human values into the process [19, 20].
HCD is evaluated through human-centered quality, including usability, UX, accessibility, and avoidance of harm [36, 37]. Usability measures ease of use [22], and Nielsen’s five principles form its base [58], later refined by Lauesen [45]. ISO defines usability as ”the extent to which a system can be used by specified users to achieve goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a given context of use” [36]. The context of use includes users, tasks, resources, and the environment, covering physical, technical, social, cultural, and organizational dimensions [35].
Though UX lacks a clear definition [32], it generally refers to the quality of use in interaction with products [6]. ISO defines UX as ”user perceptions and responses resulting from the use or anticipated use of a system” [36], including preferences, attitudes, emotions, and physical and psychological responses before, during, and after use. Accessibility refers to how well products, systems, services, environments, and facilities can be used by a wide range of people, including people with disabilities, for achieving goals in specific contexts [36]. Masruroh et al. encourages to design for both – people with disabilities and not – because more mobile applications are used by also people with special needs [50]. Avoidance of harm means that system’s usage should not negatively impact health, safety, finances, or the environment [36]. Rajanen identifies four ethical dimensions: ease of use, honesty, sustainable design, and safety [64], summarizing this with the HCI golden rule: ”Design as easy to use, honest, sustainable, and safe human-technology interactions as you would want others to design for you” [64]. Also, many other principles ensure the ethical design in HCI [55].

2.2 Broadening concerns in Human-Centered Design

The context of design [69] is ‘‘The socio-technical system comprising the design and development process in a lifecycle perspective.’’ Defining and understanding the context of design enables tailoring UCD activities, which might lead to better results. However, the context of design might be an unstable environment with stakeholders’ conflicting interests. Svanæs and Gulliksen suggest guidelines for tactical UCD in such environments [69].
User-based evaluation and inspection are two wide categories in usability and UX evaluation. The most preferred user-based evaluation methods are usability testing and standardized questionnaires [46]. Today’s usability evaluations are mainly based on controlled observation and surveys, while methods like interviews, thinking aloud, and eye-tracking are rarely used. A notable problem is the confusion between usability and UX evaluations, which can lower evaluation quality for both [74]. Alternating expensive and demanding user testing [4, 46], inspection methods like Heuristic Evaluation (HE) emerged in the 1980s [46]. HE is a review method based on heuristics from research and experience [65] and may include usability specialists or peers [45], but a principle of evaluator’s minimized status on the project under evaluation [65]. While HE effectively replaces user testing in early stages [65], it can overlook relevant and discover irrelevant problems, so it should be combined with other evaluation methods [45].
Flow Theory [12] has impacted various fields, including outdoor recreation, sports, gaming, and internet browsing [41]. Its greatest influence is arguably in sports [49] where athletes strive to achieve optimal flow states [40]. It also applied to user interface design [7], where specific heuristics are used to evaluate UX from a flow perspective [11]. In turn, Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) views economic activity as services [73], with stakeholders working together to create value through use [33] and collaboration [42]. Service providers make value propositions but cannot create value alone [5].

2.3 Design Guidelines for Disc Golf Application Design

2.3.1 Specifying Design Principles and Guidelines.

Design principles codify prescriptive design knowledge, allowing other designers to adopt it across different time and scenario [56]. These principles, together with guidelines, heuristics, and strategic constructs, belong to the broader ‘‘knowledge explication family’’ [21]. Design Science (DS) defines a design principle as ‘‘a fundamental rule or law, derived inductively from extensive experience and/or empirical evidence, which provides design process guidance to increase the chance of reaching a successful solution’’ [21]. In HCI, principles are generalized recommendations based on empirically tested theories, while guidelines are concrete, practical, and testable criteria for applying these principles in a certain context [61]. Both DS and HCI agree that design guidelines are context-dependent, based on experience and empirical evidence, and improve success in the design process [21, 61].
Heuristics in HCI are ‘‘predefined semantic statements used in an expert evaluation’’ [61], while DS specifies them as context-dependent, intuitive directives that offer satisfactory, though not necessarily optimal, solutions [21]. Unlike guidelines, heuristics are typically not grounded in empirical research and may provide a successful but non-optimal solution, while guidelines lack specific attributes for success level [21].
New design principles require a name, structure, and components, such as aim, implementer, user, context, mechanisms, and rationale [21]. When forming new heuristic rules, they should include a name, definition, theoretical grounding, practical notes, and justification, with real-life examples [61].

2.3.2 Related Design Guidelines in HCI.

Domain-specific guidelines for application design reduce cognitive workload, improve user efficiency, and enhance participation by aligning interfaces with tasks and workflows. These guidelines ensure consistency, lower development time and costs, and make it easier to reuse UI components, leading to more intuitive systems. Overall, domain-specific guidelines improve task orientation, adaptation, and user satisfaction, increasing productivity [30].
The sports application study within the HCI field has existed for at least two decades (see e.g., [60]). More recently, building on the work by Mueller et al. [52, 56], it has been called SportsHCI [15]. Today, SportsHCI is a dynamic and multidisciplinary field [15], motivated by new technical advancements [54] and merging them with HCD principles to optimize and enhance the sports and user experience of athletes at all levels, including recreational hobbyists [15]. Nevertheless, even though SportsHCI has emerged from the shadow of HCI into a standalone interdisciplinary field with a growing body of knowledge [15], as far as sports engagement is concerned, HCI is still at an early stage [53].
Current issues in SportsHCI include an overemphasis on physical health, which may overlook experiential, intellectual, and ethical aspects [53]. The field also tends to address sport-specific problems rather than building broader knowledge for SportsHCI [15]. Many projects produce similar outcomes, such as apps for performance comparison [15]. Despite increased attention on supporting physical effort in HCI, there remains a need for theoretical frameworks and design guidelines to tackle these gaps [53]. To strengthen the theoretical foundation of SportsHCI, Mueller and Young propose 10 design lenses, focusing on aspects like reverie, pleasure, humility, and perseverance [53]. In contrast, Elvitigala et al. identify five grand challenges for SportsHCI, suggesting future projects involve key stakeholders—athletes, coaches, and spectators—to ensure relevance and practicality. Their study also highlights the importance of gamification, motivation techniques, audience interaction, and non-competitive physical activities [15].
While SportsHCI lacks specific design guidelines, HCI research has produced relevant guidelines in other areas. Given the close connection between SportsHCI and health [53], existing design literature in health and wellness is highly relevant. Effective mHealth design emphasizes a holistic approach [9, 24, 43, 67, 75, 76], iterative UCD and user participation [43, 67, 76], and stakeholder participation to identify value needs [5, 17, 43, 76]. Additionally, the importance of first impressions [25, 31, 43] and maintaining reliability over time is noted [9, 25]. Two key guidelines for health and wellness apps are motivating users to improve their health [25] and providing a smooth, guided user-controlled experience [25, 43].

2.3.3 An Initial Set of Design Guidelines from Literature.

We analyzed the findings from the literature review by focusing on design insights, such as domain-specific knowledge, together with design instructions and guidelines. After identifying each guideline, we gave it a code to address its main dimension or context. The results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1:
IDGuidelineCodesSources
L1Motivate and challenge the user for becoming a better and healthier versionENW[25]
L2Provide smooth UX where the user is in control and advisedENW, UX[25, 43]
L3Have holistic approach for designDesign[9, 24, 43, 67, 75, 76]
L4Actively involve users in designDesign, User[43, 67, 76]
L5Actively involve stakeholders in design, identify their values, and make value proposalsStakeholder, Value[5, 17, 43, 76]
L6Address the importance of first impressionFirst impression[31, 43]
L7Design the application to have reliable continuumENW, Continuum[9, 25]
L8Identify the context of designDesign[69]
L9Support player’s flow stateFlow[7, 12, 40, 49]
L10Test application with heuristic evaluation and other methodsEvaluation[4, 45, 58]
L11Avoid dark design with the HCI golden ruleEthics[64]
L12Have multiple design iterationsDesign[26]
L13Concentrate on human values during the whole processEthics, Values[19, 20]
L14Evaluate HCD with HC quality criteria - usability, UX, accessibility, and avoidance of harm from useEvaluation[36, 37]
L15To know users’ environment, define the context of useContext of use[35, 36]
L16Do not mix up usability and UX evaluationEvaluation[74]
L17Evaluate optimal UX from flow theory perspectiveEvaluation, Flow[7, 11]
L18Adapt existing or develop new domain-specific guidelinesDesign, Evaluation[30]
L19Check if application provider is prepared for HCD process from organizational and business perspectivesApplication provider, Business, Organization[1, 17, 42, 63, 66]
Table 1: Disc golf application design guidelines from literature (L) with identified codes

3 Methodology

3.1 Research Methods

We conducted an in-depth qualitative case study [13] to identify design guidelines for DG application design. This research applies structured methodologies within a qualitative framework. We use a case study approach [47] to explore design guidelines and principles in the context of disc golf and SportsHCI.
This study includes a literature review adapting the guidelines by Green et al. [27]. Consequently, we conducted the first phases of HCD (adapting e.g., [24]) and UCD (adapting e.g., [75]) processes for designing a new DG application. The HCD process started with qualitative research methods, such as questionnaires and contextual inquiries (adapting [34]), including observations and interviews. The case study data analysis conducts pattern-matching and explanation-building, and because of multiple sources of evidence, triangulation for data convergence. As the main data analysis method, the study conducts thematic analysis (adapting [8]) and adapts affinity diagrams as suggested by Holtzblatt and Beyer [34].

3.2 Human-Centered Design Process for a New Disc Golf Application

To address the design research gap in SportsHCI, we aimed to generate new empirical design knowledge, including guidelines for DG application design. The study followed the HCD process by conducting a user study on the context of use and user requirements while also developing personas and mapping stakeholders (Figure 1).
Figure 1:
Figure 1: Research environment of human-centered design process
During the user study phase, to identify users’ demographics, preferences, DG playing habits, and users’ ENWs for DG applications, we conducted an online questionnaire for disc golf players. The questionnaire was implemented in May 2022 in a social media group involving people interested in DG, including 22 semi-structured questions, and received 94 responses in five days. Moreover, we conducted contextual inquiries “in the wild,” on DG courses, to gather additional information about the context of use and players’ ENWs. We observed DG application usage in an actual environment and interviewed three intended users with different skill levels: hobbyist, amateur, and professional. At the application design and evaluation phases, we conducted 3 interviews and 1 expert interview. We also involved four users in sketching and designing the application. The testing and evaluation phase included three types of heuristic evaluations for four different DG application prototypes with three evaluators, and a DG industry case company participated in the research by providing test cases, user testing sessions, and usability and UX testing with 11 participants.
Next, the key findings from the HCD process are presented to clarify which research method and study phase led to the identification of each guideline. The findings include references (Ei) to Table 2, relating guidelines with specific findings.

3.2.1 Findings from Questionnaire.

Key findings from the questionnaire include, for example, the three most used disc golf applications (UDisc application, Disc Golf Metrix, and Upsi application) with usage reasoning, lists of expectations, needs, and wishes, and knowledge about playing habits and preferences. We found that 96% of DG players use at least one DG application. The questionnaire results show that the majority of players expect the application to be easy to use and functional. Approximately every third user expects regular updates (E1). According to the questionnaire results, DG applications are primarily used for score-keeping, statistics, and maps/map updates, with high priority; medium-priority features include measuring throws and social features (E2). Approximately one in three users would prefer a disc golf application that includes all essential features, eliminating the need for multiple applications used in official competitions (E3). Additionally, users store and sort their discs in various ways, such as by type, model, speed, and color (E4).

3.2.2 Findings from Contextual Inquiries.

Key findings from contextual inquiries provide insights into DG application usage and the DG ecosystem, as well as examples of usability and UX problems that disrupt flow states. While observing a pro-level player, we noted that they had pre-selected discs for certain fairways, highlighting a need for a ‘playbook’ feature. We confirmed this with the questionnaire: half of the players plan playbooks without an application, and 27% of all users would use a new application or feature for this purpose (E5). During the same session, we identified a need for saving the actual flight route of a disc as an image of measured throws during training (E6).
Interviews during contextual inquiry sessions revealed that players use disc golf apps in various environments, lighting, and weather conditions, including winter in Finland (E9). All three players expressed a need for advanced features, particularly for tracking statistics and training (E10), to improve their skills. Both amateur and professional players highlighted the usefulness of statistics for identifying weaknesses (E8), which are difficult to notice while playing in a flow state. Players expressed frustration with needing multiple apps: one or two for competition scoring, another for tracking statistics and measuring long throws, and a third for putting exercises. They questioned why Disc Golf Metrix lacks integrated statistics (E15). For basic score-keeping, some players log scores immediately after finishing a fairway, while others do so while walking or at the next fairway (E11).
All players discussed the impact of flow state on their game, emphasizing that the DG application should be easy to use to support continuous flow throughout the course. Unfortunately, we observed a session where a player mistakenly pressed a small button in the Disc Golf Metrix application, taking two minutes to navigate back to the correct screen. This usability issue disrupted their flow, resulting in a scorecard without any more birdies after three consecutive birdies prior to the incident (E12). Players reported using this application primarily because it is used in official competitions, despite the lack of updates and reported usability issues (E1).

3.2.3 Findings from Design and Evaluation Phase.

Key findings from the design and evaluation phases include identifying sub-contexts within the context of use, background knowledge for DG personas, identifying DG application stakeholders, and creating value proposals.
Through interviews, we gathered information on various sub-contexts, such as physical, social, cultural, organizational, psychological, and temporal, to complete the context of use. The questionnaire confirmed similar priorities for expectations, feature needs, and wishes. Using this design knowledge, we developed a disc golfer stereotype and user personas to represent different user groups and their specific needs (E13). For instance, professional DG players advocated for stakeholder participation in design to avoid needing multiple applications in official competitions (E7, E15). Based on user studies, design-phase interviews, and analysis of existing DG applications, we identified 11 stakeholders for DG applications (E7). Following literature suggestions, we proposed potential value propositions for each stakeholder, finding this process insightful (E14). To balance stakeholder needs and value propositions, we envisioned a design strategy that achieves a "win-win-…-win" condition, as suggested by SDL literature (E17). In a co-design session with a professional player, we sketched and demonstrated a feature update for ‘drawing throwlines’ (E6) and conducted paper prototype sessions for a ‘planning playbooks’ feature with hobbyist and amateur players (E5).
As part of competitive benchmarking, we observed user feedback on existing DG applications online. Unexpectedly, we found instances of unethical behavior associated with DG applications, such as score manipulation and using another player’s profile to track scores. Reports also mentioned vandalism and abuse, raising concerns about data security and user privacy in DG applications (E16).

3.2.4 An Initial Set of Design Guidelines from the Empirical Study.

We analyzed the results from the empirical study by focusing on design insights, such as domain-specific knowledge, along with design instructions and guidelines. After forming each guideline, we assigned it a code to indicate its main dimension or context. The results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2:
IDGuidelineCodes
E1Design application to be easy to use, functional, and regularly updated.ENW
E2Include features for score-keeping, statistics, map updates, measuring throws, and social features.ENW
E3Gather everything into the same application.ENW
E4Allow different types of storing and sorting DG discs.ENW
E5Add a feature for Playbook, which is “manually” used by most players.New feature, ENW
E6Add a feature for drawing the actual flight route of the disc when measuring/saving the throw.New feature, ENW
E7Involve critical stakeholders in design, or multiple applications may be required.Stakeholders
E8Design so that users can become better players and spot weak spots with statistics.ENW, Goals
E9Ensure the application works in the woods and in various weather conditions.Context of use
E10Include features for advanced DG training.ENW
E11Account for different user preferences (e.g., in scorekeeping).ENW
E12Ensure high usability to support players’ flow state.Usability, Flow
E13Incorporate DG personas in design to address different user groups.Design, Users, Personas
E14Prepare carefully considered value proposals for users and stakeholders.Value
E15Avoid relying on another application or its features.Design
E16Address ethical issues, such as user security and privacy.Ethics, Avoidance of harm
E17Aim for a win-win-…-win condition with stakeholders in design process.Objectives, Value, Design
Table 2: Disc golf application design guidelines from Empirical (E) research with identified codes
Table 3:
IDCandidate for Design PrinciplesSupersetsSubsets (Sub-subsets)
1Identify and visit the context of useContext of use 
2Ensure the application fulfills users’ ENWUsersENW (New features, Personas)
3Identify and map stakeholdersStakeholders 
4Be in congruence with the natural flowFlow 
5Respect the ethical aspectsEthics 
6Prepare, offer, and evaluate value propositions to each stakeholderValue 
7Identify the context of design and ensure it supports HCDDesign 
8Design the application to have a mesmerizing first impression and reliable continuumSpecial cases in useContinuum, First impression
9Identify the context of evaluation and ensure it supports HCDEvaluationHC quality (Usability, UX, Accessibility, Avoidance of harm)
10Ensure that the application provider has suitable business supportApplication providerBusiness, Organization
11Design for the co-created value greater than the value each stakeholder can create by themselvesContext of idealityObjectives, Goals
Table 3: Code refinement process from guidelines into principles

4 Proposing Design Principles for Sports Applications

This section outlines an iterative process for developing design principles based on guidelines from literature and empirical studies, followed by the creation of a template to present the proposed principles for SportsHCI applications.

4.1 Process of Generalizing the Identified Design Guidelines into Fundamental Design Principles

Next, we simplify and generalize the identified codes from literature (Table 1) and empirical study (Table 2) by applying logical thinking and mathematical set theory. This involved examining which guideline codes could be categorized under other codes. In set theory terms, we sought to unite all subsets into their respective supersets to produce generalized codes for design principles (Table 3).
After generalizing the codes into supersets, we created brief descriptions to capture the essence of each principle. These descriptions, combining insights from literature and empirical studies, serve as candidates for design principles.

4.2 Outcomes: The Human-Centered Design Principles for SportsHCI Applications

Before presenting the final set of principles, we developed a template for design principles (Table 4) by adapting suggestions for new heuristics from the HCI field by Ozdowska et al. [61], along with suggestions for the development of design principles from the information systems and design science fields by Gregor et al. [28]. In Table 4, the references are marked with these authors’ first letters, ‘O’ and ‘G’. The left column includes the topic headlines used in the template, while the right column provides descriptions.
Table 4:
ID, Name (O)Title for Design Principle (G) including ID and name.
Definition (O)Is formed by adapting the idea of aim, implementer, and user (G).
Context (G)Links principle with theoretical grounding (O), and adds a practical use note if necessary (O).
DirectionsIncludes a straightforward explanation (O) and mechanism (G) for implementing the principle.
Rationale (G)Presents justification for the principle, including possible benefits (O) and potential problems (O).
Example (O)Provides a real-life example of how to adapt the principle.
Table 4: Template for new Design Principles formed based on Ozdowska et al. [61] (O) and Gregor et al. [28] (G)
In the following section, we present our proposals for eleven design principles specifically tailored for SportsHCI application design from the HCD perspective. In this paper, we have chosen to exclude the last two lines of the template, which typically provide rationalization and real-life examples, and instead present these elements within the text.
Table 5:
ID, Name1. Mastering Your Domain
DefinitionFor a designer to visit the actual environment where the application is used for identifying what kind of factors have an impact on a user and the application.
ContextContext of Use with additional dimensions.
Directions- Go to the user’s environment and observe.
- Examine physical surroundings, technology used, social interactions, cultural norms, organizational structure, psychological states, and time-related factors.
- Adapt HCD techniques, such as contextual inquiry, observation, and interviews.
- Build a deep understanding of the user’s needs and challenges.
Table 5: Principle of Mastering Your Domain
’Mastering Your Domain’ principle (Table 5) refers to the context of use, the real-world settings where the application is utilized [35], influencing aspects such as its usability [36]. If the application is widely used, visits should focus on the most relevant environments, and if the context is well-understood, it may not be necessary to visit. In the case of DG application design, it is crucial to observe the application on the course with players to understand its usage and influencing factors, such as interactions with other players, tournament directors, weather conditions, and updates in PDGA rules.
Table 6:
ID, Name2. Knowing What It Takes
DefinitionFor a designer to conduct a user study aiming at deeply understanding users’ expectations, needs, and wishes, so that the designed application will be satisfying for users.
ContextUsers
Directions- Conduct a user study to understand the application’s user requirements.
- Form intended user groups and map their expectations, needs, and wishes.
- Develop personas and scenarios accurately reflecting real-life characteristics and needs.

- Enable effective communication within the design project by forming relevant use cases and user journeys.
- Adapt HCD methods throughout the process.
Table 6: Principle of Knowing What It Takes
’Knowing What It Takes’ (Table 6) recalls the core of HCD in a deep commitment to understand and fulfill users’ expectations, needs, and wishes [9, 24, 66, 75]. Thus, HCD is used to ensure that the application is easy to use and functional for all user groups in its specific environment [24], as defined in ISO [36, 37]. However, balancing qualitative user insights with limited time and resources can be a challenge in the design process [39]. For the design of the disc golf application, users were surveyed using a social media questionnaire, interviews, and contextual inquiries. Based on these findings, disc golf personas were developed to highlight identified characteristics and pain points (see Appendices  A.1 and  A.2).
Table 7:
ID, Name3. Parties Involved
DefinitionFor a designer to identify and map all stakeholders involved in a design project to ensure that the application’s design is built on a comprehensive and inclusive foundation.
ContextStakeholders
Directions- For identifying stakeholders, ask: “Who does this project concern?”
- Make a stakeholder list including name, description, priority, and impact on the project.
- Adapt HCD and SCD techniques for preparing persona-style stakeholder cards.
- Outline all parties’ needs and contributions for effective design integration.
Table 7: Principle of Parties Involved
’Parties Involved’ principle (Table 7) aims for comprehensive results in design, because adaptation of a broader view than the traditional UCD is essential [43, 76]. Today’s platforms are designed to meet the requirements and needs of multiple stakeholders, not just intended users [17]. Nevertheless, design can be an uncertain environment, where various stakeholders meet with conflicting interests [69]. In the disc golf application design process, 13 stakeholders were identified through the analysis of existing applications, empirical research findings, and the designer’s personal experience (see Appendix  A.3, Table  A.3.1). These stakeholders were listed and rated based on their relevance (see Appendix  A.3, Figure  A.3.1).
Table 8:
ID, Name4. Let It Flow
DefinitionFor a designer to be aware of natural flow phenomena and take them into account when designing applications, so that different kinds of flow states are not compromised.
ContextContext of Flow
Directions- Identify and list different types of flow your design project includes.
- Ensure that sports applications are as intuitive as possible to enable effortless concentration.
- Recognize flow state in designers’ creative and evaluators’ assessment phases.
- Aim for congruence when stakeholders’ business and process flows align with the design.
- Consider using methods like contextual inquiry, observation, interviews, and workshops.
Table 8: Principle of Let It Flow
The principle of ’Let It Flow’ (Table 8) reminds that sports applications should support the player in the flow state [38, 40] by allowing the player to experience effortless concentration [49]. The optimal psychological flow state is highly valued by athletes [40]. Designers should incorporate flow-specific heuristics, such as those suggested by Colombo and Pasch [11]. Balancing various flow types across user groups, stakeholders, and processes can be challenging and time-consuming. Among all skill levels of disc golf players, flow state is highly valued. However, there are usability issues in current applications that disrupt this optimal experience. Therefore, improving existing disc golf applications from a flow perspective is recommended. This is demonstrated with a design sketch featuring relatively large score-keeping buttons, adaptable for use in the forest, even under challenging weather conditions (see Appendix  A.4, Figure  A.4.1).
Table 9:
ID, Name5. Do the Right Thing
DefinitionFor a designer to remember to respect the ethical aspects when designing and developing applications.
ContextContext of Ethics
Directions- Conduct a thorough ethical review for design project by evaluating everyone involved.
- Ensure that your design is sustainable and does not harm the usage environment.
- Confirm the application poses no harm to users or stakeholders and cannot be used unethically.
- Ensure all stakeholders and the application provider meet appropriate ethical standards.
- Promote integrity among people involved.
- When implementing ethical review, consider adapting HCD and VSD techniques.
Table 9: Principle of Do the Right Thing
’Do the Right Thing,’ principle (Table 9) underlines human-centered quality’s ethically loaded aspect, the avoidance of harm [36]. Avoidance of harm is related to human values via VSD (see e.g., [20]) and sustainable design (see e.g., [64]). Emphasizing ethics may also promote higher moral standards among everyone involved [29, 51]. Specific ethical design guidelines, such as those suggested by Mulvenna et al. [55], should be adapted. Designers should also be aware that personal values may conflict with societal or workplace norms and that understanding stakeholders’ ethical intentions can be challenging. In DG applications, ethical issues discovered include users manipulating scorecards after competitions or using another player’s profile to track scores.
Table 10:
ID, Name6. Mutual Interests
DefinitionFor a designer to identify, understand, and offer valuable reasons for each stakeholder and user group to be part of the application project and its usage.
ContextContext of Value
Directions- Identify and articulate clear value propositions for users and stakeholders.
- Incorporate value propositions into personas, stakeholder cards, or other process management tools.
- Communicate and deliver value proposals to users and stakeholders.
- Annually assess if users and stakeholders perceive the intended value.
- Ensure that value propositions are distinct for each user group and stakeholder, as everyone is interested in their own value expectations.
- Validate the proposed value is expected and perceived correctly (verification).
- Revise the value proposition if feedback indicates unmet expectations.
- Adapt HCD methods and the SDL approach.
Table 10: Principle of Mutual Interests
’Mutual Interests’ principle (Table 10) is implemented through the SDL approach where value co-creation helps recognizing value within a service-based usage process [33], as the service provider alone cannot create value [5]. Therefore, identifying stakeholders’ and users’ values and using value proposals is advised [5, 17]. Having a strong reason for application use is essential, as one of the top reasons for uninstalling an application is the mismatch between its value and the user’s daily life [43]. However, identifying a suitable value proposition can be challenging. In DG application design, the value proposal for users often centers around becoming a better disc golf player. Designers should consider diverse value propositions, even when they may conflict.
Table 11:
ID, Name7. Designer – Know Thyself
DefinitionFor a designer to become aware of design skills and practices, including those of oneself, the design team, or any stakeholder related to design, as well as the actual design environment and processes.
ContextContext of Design
Directions- Define the context of design by collaborating and understanding all parties’ viewpoints.
- Focus on your project-specific context of design if it differs from the company’s baseline.
- Ensure the design process adheres to HCD methodologies, including the participation of users and stakeholders.
- Conduct more than three iterative design cycles, ensuring that each iteration covers studying the context of use, designing new prototypes, and evaluation with intended end-users.
Table 11: Principle of Designer – Know Thyself
Next principle, ’Designer - Know Thyself’ (Table 11), calls on designers to become aware of themselves and the design-related context around them. The context of design is based on the study by Svanæs and Gulliksen [69], and a holistic approach to design, favoring HCD methodology, is recommended [9, 24, 43, 67, 75, 76]. The context of design may be challenging to identify, as it can be project-specific and evolving [69]. We identified two types of DG application providers: those that adapt HCD methodology and those that oppose it. We also found a company that unconsciously adopts HCD methods for the backend with employees but not for frontend users. An example of adapting the HCD methodology is visualized in a series of design sketches where a new feature for visualizing a disc’s flight route was developed in cooperation with a professional disc golf player (see Appendix  A.5, Figure  A.5.1).
Table 12:
ID, Name8. From When We First Met till Eternity
DefinitionFor a designer to develop mesmerizing key usage phases for application users, creating a positive first impression and engaging users over the long term.
ContextEngagement in Key Usage Phases
Directions- Identify key usage phases: the initial use and continued engagement over time.
- Create a strong first impression by combining beautiful aesthetics with clear onboarding and intuitive usability.
- For reliable continued usage, implement regular updates (suggested monthly) to retain user interest and fulfill expectations.
- Include user participation in design, adapting HCD methods, across all key usage phases.
Table 12: Principle of From When We First Met till Eternity
The principle of ’From When We First Met till Eternity’ (Table 12) presents two key-usage phases. An aesthetic first impression is as important as usability [31], and first impressions are crucial, as the application uninstall rate is highest on the first day of use [43]. Additionally, reliable continued engagement with regular updates is recommended by sources such as [9, 25]. These two key usage phases should ideally be complemented with phases like discovery and engagement [25]. In the DG case, some application providers have recognized these key usage phases, while one of the most popular lacks even critical updates. The questionnaire also shows that regular updates are expected by most users.
Table 13:
ID, Name9. Second-Opinion Flood
DefinitionFor a designer to become aware of evaluation skills and practices of oneself, any evaluation team, or stakeholders related to evaluation, along with the actual evaluation environment and processes.
ContextContext of Evaluation
Directions- Identify the context of evaluation, along with the evaluators and their characteristics.
- In the early phase, conduct at least two heuristic evaluations to assess the application.
- Utilize HCD for evaluation, including user testing, expert reviews, and usability testing. Ensure collaboration between designers and external expert evaluators to gain unbiased insights.
- Ensure the context of evaluation supports HCD and its quality criteria: Evaluate usability objectively, UX subjectively, and design also for accessibility.
Table 13: Principle of Second-Opinion Flood
The ’Second-Opinion Flood’ principle (Table 13) enforces the status of evaluation during the design process. The application should be tested with heuristic evaluation in the early phase [65], but later with other methods as well [4, 45]. Importantly, it should not be tested by its designers or others involved in the design [65]. Adopt human-centered quality criteria [36, 37] for evaluation, along with tailored guidelines for usability [59], UX [2], and accessibility [14]. Finding external evaluators and users can be challenging and costly. In our experiences from the DG industry, some application providers have not defined a long-term evaluation context or protocols. Despite these challenges, multiple evaluation methods were used in our sessions, identifying ongoing design issues with users and stakeholders.
Table 14:
ID, Name10. Showing the Cards
DefinitionFor a designer to understand if the application provider’s current state is compliant with integrating the HCD process.
ContextApplication provider, including strategy, business model, organizational culture, etc.
Directions- Ensure the application provider’s business is reliable and profitable; otherwise, there is no reason to begin.
- Discuss strategy and organizational culture to ensure support for HCD and value co-creation.
- Clarify the project’s scope with company’s decision-makers.
- Consider an educational agenda to ensure all participants understand the HCD approach and its methods.
Table 14: Principle of Showing the Cards
’Showing the Cards’ principle (Table 14) is needed for evaluating application provider’s readiness for integrating human-centered design. Close connections with users are critical for HCD project implementation [66], as value arises through collaboration [42]. Economic considerations are integral to design, even though UCD and UX often overlook them [17]. Usability issues impact business, organization, and customers [63], and a successful mobile service must meet the needs of business managers, software developers, project managers, and financiers [1]. However, a gap exists between HCD frameworks and real-world settings [66], and ingrained development practices can be difficult to change [69]. In our research, some DG application providers refused to adopt HCD methodology, despite user demand or our offers of pro bono implementation. Resistance in our case company regarding usability testing results led us to implement an HCD educational agenda, which proved essential for effective collaboration.
Table 15:
ID, Name11. Everybody Wins
DefinitionFor a designer to implement the design project as a collaboration where all stakeholders and users achieve the proposed value.
ContextContext of Ideality – the desired state, objective, and outcome of the design process.
Directions- Take the list of value proposals and sketch the ideal scenario where the application unites the different value proposals and invites stakeholders for value co-creation.
- Develop best- and worst-case scenarios for integrating user and stakeholder journeys and anticipating risks.
- Aim for a co-created value greater than value each stakeholder can create independently.
Table 15: Principle of Everybody Wins
’Everybody wins’ principle (Table 15) exemplifies the holistic approach to design as advocated in sources such as [9, 24, 43, 67, 75, 76]. It embodies the core concept of service-dominant logic [33, 73] combined with the psychological concept of a ‘desired state’ [3] and the game theory concept of ‘Nash equilibrium,’ where no participant can improve their outcome by changing strategies unilaterally [57]. However, cooperative parties could sometimes gain more in the short term by leaving the partnership, and with changing markets and environments, the ideal condition may shift or become overly utopian. Our study has sketched ideal scenarios with a list of stakeholders and value proposals, but further steps in the HCD process are still pending. To create value for all involved, the DG ecosystem needs an application that unites all essential features and stakeholders, enabling collaboration with course managers for map updates, and with tournament directors and clubs for competition-related features.

5 Discussion

This study proposes design guidelines for disc golf applications, addressing the lack of prior research and issues with poorly designed applications in the field. From a literature review, we identified 19 guidelines relevant to DG applications, addressing RQ1A. Our empirical research in this context identified 17 guidelines, answering RQ1B. By associating these findings through coding themes, we developed eleven design principles for SportsHCI design theory, which answer our main research question, RQ1.

5.1 Contributions and Implications

We classify our research contributions by adapting Wobbrock and Kientz’s contribution types for the HCI field [77]. Our main theoretical contribution is the proposed set of eleven design principles for the emerging design theory in the SportsHCI field. Closely related to these principles, our methodological contribution includes context-specific guidelines for designing disc golf applications, consisting of 19 guidelines from the literature review and 18 from empirical research.
For HCI theory, we offer a systematic and detailed methodological contribution for developing and communicating new design principles. The template (Table 4) can also be adapted for presenting heuristics and guidelines. We note that HCI research lacks consensus on terminology, and the process of generating design principles is not clearly specified. This study clarifies the process involved in generating design principles and specifies how we use associated terminology. After examining definitions for principles, heuristics, and guidelines, we consider ‘principle’ to be the highest in their mutual categorical hierarchy. This conclusion is supported by the fact that heuristics and guidelines seem to fit under the identified principles, following a mathematical analogy of subsets and supersets.
Our research identified several context-specific sets of design guidelines and heuristics for topics like flow [11], ethics [55], usability [59], UX [2], and accessibility [14]. Our design principles provide a logical structure for organizing and relating these guidelines and heuristics, without replacing them. We recommend practitioners use design principles to identify main themes, then apply specific guidelines and heuristics for detailed focus areas (e.g., flow design or UX).
Our research aligns with recent findings in SportsHCI, recognizing the five major challenges (C) in SportsHCI [15]. Our principles focused on users (P2) and value (P6) can support performance optimization (C1), consistent with the goal of ‘becoming a better athlete,’ as highlighted in [53]. Engaging stakeholders (P3) in HCD processes (P7) enhances cross-party understanding (C2). Mastering the contexts of use (P1), flow (P4), and ethics (P5) are essential for integrating SportsHCI into real-world scenarios (C4). Additionally, aligning mutual interests (P3, P6) and co-creating value (P11) addresses long-term social impacts (C5). Designing for multifaceted individuals (C3) remains a complex yet crucial task (P2). We also noted that the 10 lenses for SportsHCI [53] reflect user experiences in disc golf, like the reverie of solo rounds or the pleasure from well-executed throws. Altogether, our proposed design principles can positively impact major SportsHCI challenges and offer additional context for various sports experience lenses.
In relation to previous HCI research, our proposed principles reach the top of the human-centered pyramid [24] when the proposed value is correctly chosen; it represents the reason a user engages with the application. In the DG context, a fitting value proposal might be ‘become a better disc golf player,’ or for casual players and youth, ‘enjoy outdoor sports.’ Our principles also indicate that this value proposal should be evaluated and refined as needed (P6). Additionally, we observed that value-sensitive design, where users’ values are examined and integrated into the design, falls under a different context than the value associated with purpose. We categorized VSD under the context of ethics [64], while value rooted in meaning and purpose is categorized within the context of value (aligning with e.g., [10]).
We considered the comprehensiveness of our proposed principles. Modern design can be divided into three major movements: technology-driven design, sustainable design, and human-centered design [24]. Although we chose the HCD approach, technology is present within the context of use, encompassing technological sub-contexts. Sustainability is incorporated into the context of ethics, as noted by Rajanen [64]. Addressing user expectations around technology and sustainability is essential in SportsHCI design. Technology is prominent in disc golf, where most players use an application, and disc golf is primarily played in natural settings, which both players and clubs value. Communities often hold volunteer events to maintain these environments, with players regularly cleaning up the woods.

5.2 Limitations

This research has several limitations. The proposed design principles need further discussion and evaluation by other researchers and case studies, as practical application is the true test. The value of this work will ultimately be measured through the real-world design of disc golf and sports applications. While this study addresses a gap in SportsHCI design theory—a new branch of HCI—we recognize that principles derived from disc golf may not apply universally to all sports.
The first author’s involvement in the disc golf community could introduce bias, but the coauthors helped to mitigate this risk. Additionally, relying on questionnaire results from a single social media channel may impact data reliability. We triangulated our data from various sources to strengthen our findings.

5.3 Future Research

Future research should continue to address the gap in DG and SportsHCI application design and principles. It is recommended to validate or challenge the findings of this study. Future studies might also investigate whether these design principles apply beyond SportsHCI.
Another suggestion for future research is to transform the proposed design principles into a framework, which could be beneficial, for example, in educational contexts. An evaluation tool based on these principles could also be developed to ensure a holistic, human-centered design in future application projects.
Finally, future research could focus on adapting the principles to design new sports experiences using emerging technologies. For instance, companies have already developed sensor-based solutions to measure the angles and forces of a disc golf throw, providing potential case study opportunities [23, 71].

6 Conclusion

Disc golf is growing in both industrial market size and the number of organizational players, especially in Scandinavia and the USA. However, there is a need for information technology united with the HCD expertise to better engage and involve users and stakeholders. Modern applications should aim for optimal UX, ethical integrity, value-sensitivity, and value co-creation with all parties involved. The current sports application study is placed under the SportsHCI field.
Our research aimed to identify design guidelines crucial for the disc golf application design context. For a deeper understanding of the domain, we conducted the HCD study involving a total of 120 players and stakeholders. From the study findings, we learned about disc golf as a sport, as well as the expectations, needs, and wishes of players and stakeholders. Moreover, we gathered the identified design knowledge into guidelines, guiding designers and developers of SportsHCI into more human-centric design solutions. Moreover, we logically refined design guidelines into top categories, which we are proposing as a set of eleven human-centered design principles for SportsHCI field.
Our findings help bridge the research gap in SportsHCI design theory and lay the groundwork for further research on this topic. We hope that future research and the SportsHCI community will build upon the proposed design principles to enhance the emerging body of knowledge within the multidisciplinary SportsHCI field.

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by a doctoral scholarship from the University of Oulu Graduate School (UniOGS). We would also like to thank all the participants involved in the user tests, design sessions, questionnaire responses, and interviews for their valuable contributions to this research.

A Appendices

A.1 Disc Golfer Stereotype

Figure A.1.1:
Figure A.1.1: A Finnish version of the disc golfer stereotype.

A.2 Disc Golf Application User Persona

Figure A.2.1:
Figure A.2.1: Disc golf application user persona for amateur player.

A.3 Disc Golf Application Stakeholders

Table A.3.1:
IDStakeholderDescription
1UserAn individual who actively uses a disc golf application.
2One-time indirect userAn individual who is not registered as a user but participates in a round where a registered user tracks scores using the application.
3CustomerA person or entity purchasing disc golf applications. A customer may or may not be a user. For example, parents of junior players who purchase the app but do not play disc golf themselves are considered customers.
4Tournament DirectorThe individual responsible for organizing and managing disc golf competitions.
5Course ManagerThe individual responsible for maintaining and overseeing a specific disc golf course.
6SpectatorAn individual who watches disc golf events and players.
7Local clubManages disc golf activities within a specific area or community.
8National associationOversees and organizes disc golf activities at the national level within a particular country.
9PDGAThe Professional Disc Golf Association; the international governing body for disc golf.
10Disc golf placesDisc golf places include public and private courses, as well as well-known disc golf locations, such as Charlotte in North Carolina, Austin in Texas, and Jyväskylä in Finland.
11Disc golf shopsRetailers specializing in disc golf equipment.
12Disc golf expertsA person or entity that presents, teaches, or analyzes disc golf content, such as coaches and YouTube channels.
13Application providerAn entity, such as a company or organization, that provides the application (e.g., Disc Golf Metrix, UDisc, Tjing, and PDGA Live). This also includes the provider’s stakeholders, like shareholders and investors, as part of the application provider stakeholders in this context.
Table A.3.1: Disc golf application stakeholders.
Figure A.3.1:
Figure A.3.1: Disc golf application stakeholder card for Club Enthusiast.

A.4 Design Sketch for Score-keeping noticing Contexts of Use and Flow

Figure A.4.1:
Figure A.4.1: Disc golf application design sketch noticing player’s fragile flow-state with separated, large buttons.

A.5 Design Sketches for New Feature to Visualize Disc’s Flight Route

Figure A.5.1:
Figure A.5.1: Design sketches illustrating (a) a traditional feature for measuring throw, (b) the addition of a line-drawing tool to complete the feature, and (c) the demonstration of setting a flight route. These sketches were developed in collaboration with a professional disc golf player.

References

[1]
Ari Alamaki and Amir Dirin. 2015. The Stakeholders of a User-Centred Design Process in Mobile Service Development. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications 5, 4 (2015), 270–284.
[2]
Leena Arhippainen. 2013. A Tutorial of Ten User Experience Heuristics. In Proceedings of International Conference on Making Sense of Converging Media (Tampere, Finland) (AcademicMindTrek ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 336–337.
[3]
James Austin and Jeffrey Vancouver. 1996. Goal Constructs in Psychology: Structure, Process, and Content. Psychological Bulletin 120 (Nov. 1996), 338–375.
[4]
Frederik Bader, Eva Maria Schön, and Jörg Thomaschewski. 2017. Heuristics Considering UX and Quality Criteria for Heuristics. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 4, Regular Issue (2017), 48–53. https://www.ijimai.org/journal/bibcite/reference/2627
[5]
David Ballantyne, John Williams, and Robert Aitken. 2011. Introduction to service-dominant logic: From propositions to practice. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 2 (Feb. 2011), 179–180.
[6]
Javier A. Bargas-Avila and Kasper Hornbæk. 2011. Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2689–2698.
[7]
Benjamin B. Bederson. 2004. Interfaces for staying in the flow. Ubiquity 2004, September (Sept. 2004), 1.
[8]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 57–71.
[9]
Raoni Pontes Caselli and Marcelo Gitirana Gomes Ferreira. 2018. Systematic proposal for UX centered mobile apps for tracking performance in sports through an application in recreational surfing. Product Management & Development 16, 1 (2018), 37–46.
[10]
Gilbert Cockton. 2006. Designing worth is worth designing. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles(NordiCHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 165–174.
[11]
Luca Colombo and Marco Pasch. 2012. 10 Heuristics for an Optimal User Experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). ACM, Austin, Texas, USA, 10 pages. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10-Heuristics-for-an-Optimal-User-Experience-Colombo-Pasch/7da6e85bc906015152bb74649d6a5f35ab5c3cc6
[12]
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1991. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience (1. harperperennial ed ed.). HarperCollins, New York (N.Y.).
[13]
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA, 1–32. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Discipline-and-Practice-of-Qualitative-Research-Denzin-Lincoln/f280cba1b7013987f6dd3b220b272aad6f5bb84e
[14]
Marianna Di Gregorio, Dario Di Nucci, Fabio Palomba, and Giuliana Vitiello. 2022. The making of accessible Android applications: an empirical study on the state of the practice. Empirical Software Engineering 27, 6 (Aug. 2022), 145.
[15]
Don Samitha Elvitigala, Armağan Karahanoğlu, Andrii Matviienko, Laia Turmo Vidal, Dees Postma, Michael D Jones, Maria F. Montoya, Daniel Harrison, Lars Elbæk, Florian Daiber, Lisa Anneke Burr, Rakesh Patibanda, Paolo Buono, Perttu Hämäläinen, Robby Van Delden, Regina Bernhaupt, Xipei Ren, Vincent Van Rheden, Fabio Zambetta, Elise Van Den Hoven, Carine Lallemand, Dennis Reidsma, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2024. Grand Challenges in SportsHCI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–20.
[16]
Finnish Disc Golf Association. n. d. Disc Golf in Finland – statistics. https://frisbeegolfliitto.fi/disc-golf-in-finland-statistics/
[17]
Jodi Forlizzi. 2018. Moving beyond user-centered design. Interactions 25, 5 (Aug. 2018), 22–23.
[18]
Nicolas Frevel, Daniel Beiderbeck, and Sascha L. Schmidt. 2022. The impact of technology on sports – A prospective study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 182 (Sept. 2022), 121838.
[19]
Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry, and Alan Borning. 2017. A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 11, 2 (March 2017), 63–125.
[20]
Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, Ping Zhang, and Dennis Galletta. 2006. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. M.E. Sharpe, Inc., NY.
[21]
Katherine K. Fu, Maria C. Yang, and Kristin L. Wood. 2016. Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future Directions. Journal of Mechanical Design 138, 101103 (Aug. 2016), 14 pages.
[22]
Sven Fuhrmann. 2018. 1.30 - User-Centered Design for Geoinformation Technologies. In Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems, Bo Huang (Ed.). Elsevier, Oxford, 438–445.
[23]
GameProofer. n. d. GameProofer Shop. https://www.gameproofer.com/ GameProofer store.
[24]
Joseph Giacomin. 2014. What Is Human Centred Design? The Design Journal 17, 4 (Dec. 2014), 606–623. Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186.
[25]
Google. n. d. Health & Wellness Apps: Winning Hearts and Minds of Consumers. Technical Report. Google. https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/health_wellness_apps_whitepaper_final.pdf
[26]
John D. Gould and Clayton Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28, 3 (March 1985), 300–311.
[27]
Bart N. Green, Claire D. Johnson, and Alan Adams. 2006. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 5, 3 (Sept. 2006), 101–117.
[28]
Shirley Gregor, Leona Chandra Kruse, and Stefan Seidel. 2020. Research Perspectives: The Anatomy of a Design Principle. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 21, 6 (Nov. 2020), 1622–1652.
[29]
Jori Grym and Veronica Liljander. 2016. To Cheat or Not to Cheat? The Effect of a Moral Reminder on Cheating. NJB 65, 3-4 (2016), 18–37.
[30]
Jan Gulliksen and Bengt Sandblad. 1995. Domain-specific design of user interfaces. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interaction 7 (April 1995), 135–151.
[31]
Fu Guo, Xue-Shuang Wang, Hao Shao, Xiao-Rong Wang, and Wei-Lin Liu. 2019. How User’s First Impression Forms on Mobile user Interface?: An ERPs Study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36, 9 (2019), 870–880. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1699745.
[32]
Pedro Gómez-López, Francisco Montero Simarro, and María Teresa López Bonal. 2019. Analysing the UX scope through its definitions. In Proceedings of the XX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction(Interacción ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Donostia, Gipuzkoa, Spain, 1–4.
[33]
Kea Hartwig, Lewin von Saldern, and Frank Jacob. 2021. The journey from goods-dominant logic to service-dominant logic: A case study with a global technology manufacturer. Industrial Marketing Management 95 (May 2021), 85–98.
[34]
Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. 2014. Contextual Design: Evolved. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 7 (Oct. 2014), 1–91.
[35]
Interaction Design Foundation - IxDF. 2015. What are Contexts of Use?https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/contexts-of-use
[38]
Susan A. Jackson and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1999. Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, IL, US. Pages: viii, 181.
[39]
Jim Jansen, Soon-Gyo Jung, Joni Salminen, Kathleen Guan, and Lene Nielsen. 2021. Strengths and Weaknesses of Persona Creation Methods: Guidelines and Opportunities for Digital Innovations. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Hawaii, USA, 4971–4980.
[40]
Ying Hwa Kee, Chunxiao Li, Chun-Qing Zhang, and John Chee Keng Wang. 2021. The wu-wei alternative: Effortless action and non-striving in the context of mindfulness practice and performance in sport. Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 1, 2 (Sept. 2021), 122–132.
[41]
Minseong Kim and Brijesh Thapa. 2018. Perceived value and flow experience: Application in a nature-based tourism context. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 8 (June 2018), 373–384.
[42]
Marianne Kinnula, Netta Iivari, Minna Isomursu, and Sari Laari-Salmela. 2018. ‘Worksome but Rewarding’ –Stakeholder Perceptions on Value in Collaborative Design Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27 (Dec. 2018), 1–32.
[43]
Yiannis Koumpouros. 2022. User-Centric Design Methodology for mHealth Apps: The PainApp Paradigm for Chronic Pain. Technologies 10, 1 (Feb. 2022), 25. Number: 1 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
[44]
Arto Lanamäki, Karin Väyrynen, Sari Laari-Salmela, and Marianne Kinnula. 2020. Examining relational digital transformation through the unfolding of local practices of the Finnish taxi industry. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 29, 3 (Sept. 2020), 101622.
[45]
Soren Lauesen. 2005. User Interface Design: A Software Engineering Perspective. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA.
[46]
James R. Lewis and Jeff Sauro. 2021. USABILITY AND USER EXPERIENCE: DESIGN AND EVALUATION. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (5th ed.), Gavriel Salvendy and Waldemar Karwowski (Eds.). Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 972–1015.
[47]
Patricia Lucas, Jenny Fleming, and J. Bhosale. 2018. The utility of case study as a methodology for work-integrated learning research. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning 19 (Jan. 2018), 215–222.
[48]
Market Data Forecast ltd.n. d. Disc Golf Market Size, Share, Growth, Report | 2024 to 2029. https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/disc-golf-market
[49]
Jeremy Marty-Dugas and Daniel Smilek. 2019. Deep, effortless concentration: re-examining the flow concept and exploring relations with inattention, absorption, and personality. Psychological Research 83, 8 (Nov. 2019), 1760–1777.
[50]
Siti Ummi Masruroh, Nanda Alivia Rizqy Vitalaya, Husni Teja Sukmana, Imam Subchi, Dewi Khairani, and Yusuf Durachman. 2022. Evaluation of Usability and Accessibility of Mobile Application for People with Disability: Systematic Literature Review. In 2022 International Conference on Science and Technology (ICOSTECH). IEEE, Batam City, Indonesia, 1–7.
[51]
Nina Mazar, On Amir, and Dan Ariely. 2008. The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research 45, 6 (Dec. 2008), 633–644.
[52]
Florian Mueller, Rohit A. Khot, Alan D. Chatham, Sebastiaan Pijnappel, Cagdas "Chad" Toprak, and Joe Marshall. 2013. HCI with sports. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2509–2512.
[53]
Florian Mueller and Damon Young. 2018. 10 Lenses to Design Sports-HCI. Now Foundations and Trends, Boston, MA. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8637133
[54]
Florian Floyd Mueller, Joe Marshall, Rohit Ashok Khot, Stina Nylander, and Jakob Tholander. 2015. Understanding Sports-HCI by Going Jogging at CHI. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 869–872.
[55]
Maurice Mulvenna, Jennifer Boger, and Raymond Bond. 2017. Ethical by Design: A Manifesto. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics(ECCE ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 51–54.
[56]
Frederik O Möller, Magnus RP Hansen, and Thorsten Schoormann. 2022. Synthesizing a Solution Space for Prescriptive Design Knowledge Codification. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 34, 2 (2022), 3–38.
[57]
John F. Nash. 1950. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36, 1 (Jan. 1950), 48–49. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[58]
Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
[59]
Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’90). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 249–256.
[60]
Timo Ojala, Jani Korhonen, Tiia Sutinen, Pekka Parhi, and Lauri Aalto. 2004. Mobile kärpät: a case study in wireless personal area networking. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Mobile and ubiquitous multimedia(MUM ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 149–156.
[61]
Anne Ozdowska, Penny Sweetser, and Mahsuum Daiiani. 2023. A Scoping Review of Heuristics in Videos Games Research: Definitions, Development, Application, and Operationalisation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CHI PLAY, Article 389 (Oct. 2023), 23 pages.
[62]
Professional Disc Golf Association. 2023. 2022 PDGA Year End Demographics. Technical Report. Professional Disc Golf Association. https://www.pdga.com/demographics
[63]
Dorina Rajanen, Torkil Clemmensen, Netta Iivari, Yavuz Inal, Kerem Rızvanoğlu, Ashok Sivaji, and Amélie Roche. 2017. UX Professionals’ Definitions of Usability and UX – A Comparison Between Turkey, Finland, Denmark, France and Malaysia. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2017, Regina Bernhaupt, Girish Dalvi, Anirudha Joshi, Devanuj K. Balkrishan, Jacki O’Neill, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 218–239.
[64]
Mikko Rajanen. 2022. One Design Rule to Rule Them All: Towards a Universal Golden Rule for Designers of Human-Technology Interaction. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly 1 (Dec. 2022), 1–13.
[65]
Jeffrey Rubin and Dana Chisnell. 2008. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests (2nd ed.). Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis.
[66]
Kaisa Savolainen. 2021. User-Centred Design without Involving Users: A Longitudinal Case Study in a Human-Centred-Design–Mature Company. The Design Journal 24, 6 (Nov. 2021), 887–905. Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2021.1980267.
[67]
Rebecca Schnall, Marlene Rojas, Suzanne Bakken, William Brown, Alex Carballo-Dieguez, Monique Carry, Deborah Gelaude, Jocelyn Patterson Mosley, and Jasmine Travers. 2016. A user-centered model for designing consumer mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps). Journal of Biomedical Informatics 60 (April 2016), 243–251.
[68]
Christian Stary, Florian Krenn, Harald Lerchner, Matthias Neubauer, Stefan Oppl, and Dominik Wachholder. 2015. Towards Stakeholder-Centered Design of Open Systems: Learning from Organizational Learning. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2015(ECCE ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.
[69]
Dag Svanæs and Jan Gulliksen. 2008. Understanding the context of design: towards tactical user centered design. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges(NordiCHI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 353–362.
[70]
Svenska Discgolf Förbundet.2023. Årsmöte Verksamhetsåret 2023 [Annual Meeting 2023].Technical Report. Svenska Discgolf Förbundet.https://www.svenskdiscgolf.se/wp-content/uploads/jet-engine-forms/4/2024/02/arsmote2023.pdf
[71]
TechDisc. n. d. TechDisc - Know your throw. https://shop.techdisc.com/
[72]
VALTION LIIKUNTANEUVOSTO. 2023. Lasten ja nuorten liikuntakäyttäytyminen Suomessa, LIITU-tutkimuksen tuloksia 2022. Technical Report. VALTION LIIKUNTANEUVOSTO.
[73]
Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing 68, 1 (Jan. 2004), 1–17. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
[74]
Paweł Weichbroth. 2020. Usability of Mobile Applications: A Systematic Literature Study. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 55563–55577. Conference Name: IEEE Access.
[75]
Holly O. Witteman, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Heather Colquhoun, Angela Coulter, Michèle Dugas, Angela Fagerlin, Anik MC Giguere, Sholom Glouberman, Lynne Haslett, Aubri Hoffman, Noah Ivers, France Légaré, Jean Légaré, Carrie Levin, Karli Lopez, Victor M. Montori, Thierry Provencher, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Kerri Sparling, Dawn Stacey, Gratianne Vaisson, Robert J. Volk, and William Witteman. 2015. User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review. Systematic Reviews 4, 1 (Jan. 2015), 11.
[76]
Holly O. Witteman, Gratianne Vaisson, Thierry Provencher, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Heather Colquhoun, Michele Dugas, Angela Fagerlin, Anik MC Giguere, Lynne Haslett, Aubri Hoffman, Noah M. Ivers, France Légaré, Marie-Eve Trottier, Dawn Stacey, Robert J. Volk, and Jean-Sébastien Renaud. 2021. An 11-Item Measure of User- and Human-Centered Design for Personal Health Tools (UCD-11): Development and Validation. Journal of Medical Internet Research 23, 3 (March 2021), e15032. Company: Journal of Medical Internet Research Distributor: Journal of Medical Internet Research Institution: Journal of Medical Internet Research Label: Journal of Medical Internet Research Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada.
[77]
Jacob O. Wobbrock and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in human-computer interaction. Interactions 23, 3 (April 2016), 38–44.

Index Terms

  1. Guidelines for Disc Golf Applications and Design Principles for SportsHCI: A Human-Centered Approach

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    MUM '24: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia
    December 2024
    568 pages
    ISBN:9798400712838
    DOI:10.1145/3701571

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 02 December 2024

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Human-Centered Design
    2. SportsHCI
    3. Disc Golf
    4. Sports
    5. Design Principles

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    MUM '24

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 190 of 465 submissions, 41%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 280
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)280
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)134
    Reflects downloads up to 06 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Login options

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media