{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0192822710230316, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.084690553745928, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Evaluation of the Fun Factor for the Microsoft Easyball Mouse

Microsoft was interested in measuring the “fun” value of a new input device, the Microsoft® EasyBall™ mouse (designed specifically for two to six year olds), relative to three other input devices available in the marketplace. An evaluation was conducted as a means of ensuring that the ergonomic considerations incorporated into the design of a new child's pointing device addressed the emotional needs, as well as the physical and cognitive needs, of the intended users. A research and test methodology was established to look at this issue from multiple simultaneous perspectives, using both behavioral and verbal measures. Forty four children (half boys and half girls, mixed across the age levels) and their parents were included in the study. The children varied in their level of expertise with computer and/or video games. The same basic procedure was used for all the children, with adaptations made to accommodate the attention spans and skill levels of the youngest. The children indicated through a variety of converging measures that the Microsoft EasyBall mouse was their input device of choice. The patterns of behavior varied across the age groups, but the choices of the children were clearly in favor of the Microsoft EasyBall mouse. The parents were quite accurate at predicting which input device their child would pick. A detailed examination of the videotaped sessions provided cues that caused a rethinking of the initial question “How fun is the Microsoft EasyBall mouse relative to the other input devices?”. The fun factor may have been more accurately described as a “feel good” factor. Results are discussed in terms of implications for expanding the typical physical and cognitive-based ergonomics analyses for consumer products to include emotional considerations as well.