To better understand the current landscape of gaming peripherals and input devices, I researched existing controllers, their input methods, and gained insight into user preferences to pinpoint areas where our solution could offer a unique gaming experience.
The Morse Code Button
My first idea was a simple, accessible controller made for those who have motor impairments that do not allow them to utilize finer or more granular control schemes/inputs. Inputting a sequence of short and long presses will correlate to a specific input of your choosing. For example, a short followed by a long press in sequence could be the input for the “enter” key.
Plug the controller into your PC
Launch the driver software that comes with the controller and map out your desired inputs
Launch your game of choice
Use the custom inputs you created to play!
I initially pursued this concept for its strong accessibility potential and simple interaction model, creating a clear foundation for inclusive gameplay. Through evaluation, however, I identified a key limitation: the single-input system restricted gameplay to basic mechanics (e.g., Tetris-style interactions), limiting scalability. Recognizing this misalignment with our broader product vision, I pivoted to a more robust design that could support complex, multi-input gameplay while maintaining accessibility principles.
The Malleable Cube
Each side of the cube supports different inputs (movement, jumping, attacking/dodging, and gesture-based actions like twist, pull, and swipe), allowing players to engage with games in multiple ways. The modular input system lets players adjust controls to fit their needs or the game they are playing, while integrated haptics provide real-time feedback to support immersion and learnability. This flexibility allows the controller to support a range of gameplay styles, from simple platformers to more complex interactions.
early ideation sketches
Multiple tactile surfaces and modular inputs allow players with different physical abilities or learning styles to engage with games in ways that feel natural. Its hands-on form factor emphasizes haptic and kinesthetic feedback, and the modular system supports both simple and complex gameplay as players’ skills grow. This evolution moves the design from purely assistive to inclusive and adaptive, not just enabling play but enriching it through customization, sensory interaction, and long-term usability.
Controls
Via swiping panel
By swiping left, right, up, or down, on the panel, the character will simultaneously move accordingly.
Via the lever panel
Pushing down on the lever will trigger the character to dodge enemies and obstacles or attack depending on the selected game.
Via the lever panel
Lifting the lever triggers a jump, and it can be combined with the swipe panels. For example, lifting the lever while swiping right makes the character jump diagonally to the right.
Multiple panels in combination
Slight pressure on the haptic panel triggers enhanced actions. Combining it with lever or swipe inputs unlocks “super jump” or faster running, adding layered control and more dynamic gameplay.
My team and I decided to move forward with the versatile cube idea as it tackled key challenges in making gaming more accessible and engaging. While the cube introduces a new way to interact with games, its tactile and versatile design encourages players to experiment and adapt over time. Unlike traditional controllers that rely on rigid button layouts, the cube offers a dynamic and interactive input system that evolves with the player’s skills and preferences. Our goal is to create a more immersive and inclusive gaming experience that rewards exploration and creativity.
MODULARITY
A standout feature of TACTIQ is its' unique modularity. Each panel and be removed and replaced with a different panel, allowing users to adapt the cube to their gaming styles and preferences.
Haptic
provides tactile feedback to enhance immersion and confirm actions. Players can use pressure or multiple fingers to trigger different in-game actions.
Movement
Enables directional input through swiping gestures for fluid control. This led panel can additionally serves as a engaging 8-bit display, showing short animations when the cube is in idle mode.
Buttons
The bottom panel was intentionally left empty to allow the cube to rest on a flat surface, provide a way for it to charge, and be powered on/off. The front panel is additionally free of inputs to display the name of the cube for stylistic and ergonomic purposes.
I used a strong, bold, sans-serif font in combination with our signature azure blue accent color to align with the playful yet innovative feel of the gaming cube. To further convey that fun vibe within the branding I integrated a smiley face graphic within the Q.
To gain a better sense of what the final design might feel like and have some objective way to evaluate the design with our participants, I also created a physical prototype using paper, glue, tape, and some keyboard switches.
To assess the usability and effectiveness of the TACTIQ, I conducted a comparative usability test against the Xbox controller, followed by a short interview. The goal was to evaluate how intuitive, engaging, and comfortable the TACTIQ felt when performing core actions in a 2D platformer game.
Since TACTIQ was a non-functioning prototype, I used the Wizard of Oz approach, where I observed participants’ actions and manually translated their inputs into a real controller to simulate gameplay. Each participant completed a quick run-through of a 2D platformer using both controllers, after which they provided feedback.
Some had no prior controller experience, while others were seasoned gamers
Overall, participants appreciated the novelty and adaptability of the TACTIQ but found its comfort and input placement to be a challenge.
Users liked the unique design and found the button clicks satisfying.
The modular concept showed promise, with potential for customization.
Ergonomics: Beveled edges, alternative input placements, and a more natural grip.
Input Modules: Some suggested a diamond-shaped layout to enhance ease of use.
> Our prototype was non-functional — which made usability testing a lot harder and much less immersive
> Limited testing pool — due to the timing conflicts with finals week, my team struggled to gather more participants for user testing
So was the solution successful? I would say, mostly yes! But we should also consider comfort! To make this solutions even stronger, we should look towards more ergonomic design configurations and more intuitive methods to create a working prototype.