Private and public spaces need different designs

What it is

Motion games get played in two kinds of social space: private (a bedroom alone, an empty living room) and public (a living room with family, the gym, offline events). The two spaces make opposite demands on motion design—private spaces can demand large, expressive, high-amplitude movements (no performance cost), while public spaces need small, low-key, interruptible substitutes (containing the performance cost). Private-versus-public design is not one compromise but two viable designs, switched by scene detection or player choice.

Why it happens

The two spaces' constraint difference comes from the presence or absence of performance cost (detailed in the previous two cards), and the design differentiation spans three dimensions. Amplitude: the private version can use the full tracking volume (full-body swings, real jumps), while the public version offers halved amplitude or hand-only substitutes (wrist movements replacing full-body), with recognition supporting both. Feedback: private feedback can be loud (counted reps, music, character mirroring), while public mode offers muted or headphone-based low-intrusion feedback. Session structure: private scenes support long sessions (30-minute workouts), public scenes need interruptible short units (stoppable anytime, progress saved instantly) because public use gets interrupted (family returns, the train arrives). Scene switching can be explicit (the player selects "I'm in public" mode) or implicit (time, location, camera-based people count); implicit misdetection's cost (a private session accidentally downgraded to public mode) is lower than the reverse.

Where it stops holding

Dual-mode design's cost is not double—most game content (logic, progression, levels) is shared, and the fork touches only motion schemes and feedback, a controlled incremental cost for two-scene viability. Not every game needs dual modes: party motion games squarely aimed at family living rooms (where performance cost is the fun) or fitness apps demanding full-body commitment may serve a single focused mode better than a diluted dual one. Dual-mode presentation should avoid "mode anxiety" (users agonising over which mode to pick): automatic detection plus manual override is the balance—detection gives convenience, override keeps control. Fitness games' dual mode carries one professional constraint: training effect depends on amplitude and completion, so the public mode's small-motion substitutes must preserve muscle-group and intensity equivalence, otherwise "public mode" silently becomes "ineffective mode" and the user's training value in public scenes is quietly cut.

Applying it

• Build an amplitude mapping table for core movements (standard versus low-profile equivalents), keeping training or gameplay equivalence, and switch recognition thresholds per mode.
• Provide scene selection (asked at first launch, changeable in settings, quick-switch mid-session), with public mode automatically applying muted feedback and interruptible session structure.
• Verification: measure core movements' recognition accuracy and training/gameplay outcome metrics in both modes to confirm the low-profile version's equivalence; then track real usage share and switch frequency between modes to assess the dual design's actual value.

Related

• Same group: W7.05.1 Large motions carry a performance cost in front of others · W7.05.2 The performance cost suppresses willingness to try
• Nearby: W7.02 Physical exertion budget · W7.05 Social exposure · K1.04 Usage scenes and portability
• Search terms: context aware design · motion gaming space · quiet mode · accessibility modes