# Design of a Cultural Heritage Gesture-Based Puzzle Game and Evaluation of User Experience
## 5 Evaluation  
Researchers in [35] presented a systematic literature review in which they identified three types of serious games evaluation: simple, pre/post, and pre/post/post. They observed that the simple procedure was the most used. Usually, this procedure starts with a game session followed by an evaluation mechanism provided to the players.  
For the evaluation of the Haptic Puzzle, the simple serious game evaluation type was adopted and the user experience questionnaire (UEQ) was implemented [21]. A setting was created in accordance with the specifications of the HapticSOUND system. Specifically, a large display was used in a distance of 2.5 m from the users and 1.5 m from the ground. The leap motion controller was placed at a height of 80 cm from the ground. A total of 92 participants volunteered to evaluate the Haptic Puzzle, including 45 boys and 47 girls with ages ranging from 10 to 15 years. The evaluation involved 92 game sessions that were conducted in 10 evaluation sessions. Each session contained a group of participants of similar age and a researcher who instructed and observed the session and ensured its smooth operation. The participants' groups were either large (9 to 12 participants) or small (2 to 3 participants). The evaluation was narrowed to the ages of 10 to 15, as CEM is very often visited by primary and secondary schools, and researchers aimed at uniformity in the ages of the participants.  
In the beginning of the evaluation sessions, participants observed the traditional Cretan lute and familiarized themselves with the game's interface. Then, they initiated a game session in the novel difficulty level, and they tried to assemble the lute in the shortest time possible. The rest of the participants watched the game from a short distance, just as would happen in the real conditions of the museum. During the evaluation sessions, researchers watched the game sessions and recorded their observations focusing on the difficulties faced by the participants. At the end of an evaluation session, participants were provided with the Greek version of the UEQ in an online single page Google form and they were instructed to answer the UEQ, which contained 26 seven-point Likert questions scaled from \(-\)3 (horribly bad) to \(+\)3 (extremely good) (Figure 3). Researchers had to provide clarifications regarding the meaning of some UEQ terms, especially to young participants (10 to 12 years old). The UEQ terms that required clarification included the word \"inferior\" in question 5, the words \"inventive\" and \"conventional\" in question 10, and the word \"obstructive\" in question 11. Thereafter, researchers combined and grouped the observations they recorded during the evaluation sessions and classified them into categories. These categories included the location and orientation of the navigation menus, the assembling process, the feedback players received, and finally, some general comments.  
The evaluation sessions were performed over a period of two weeks, apart from the first session which preceded the rest of the evaluation sessions by 10 days. This was because the first evaluation session was a pilot session, in which researchers reviewed the evaluation process, identified critical issues of the Haptic Puzzle, and reviewed the game's aspects (discussed in Section 7) to optimize the perceived UX. During the evaluation sessions, 82 responses were collected and analyzed using the UEQ Excel tool (XX), which aided in the visualization and interpretation of the collected data. The responses collected during the pilot session were excluded from the analysis, as the version of the Haptic Puzzle used in the pilot session was not final.