MISC. Toys report by Ismael Velo

MISC. TOYS

M2.2 report ISMAEL VELO FEIJOO

INDEX

Introduction........................................................................................ 3 Goals & Context ............................................................................... 4 Context & Stakeholders................................................................ 4 Initial goals & summary of phase one.............................................5 Revised goals and brief: 1 goal, 5 gains........................................... 5 Result..................... ............................................................................ 7 MISC. Magic Toys........................................................................ 7 User test........................................................................................ 8 Expert review................................................................................. 8 Process & Reflect................................................................................10

Conceptual fit..............................................................................10 Design & aesthetic development................................................. 15 Technical development................................................................ 18

Discussion...........................................................................................21 Future of toy design..................................................................... 21 Business evaluation...................................................................... 21 Conclusions & future steps.......................................................... 23 Reflections..........................................................................................24 Expertise areas & competency development...................................24 Personal Goals & PDP (attached)............................................... 24 Overall development & Vision.................................................... 24 Glossary............................................................................................ 25 References......................................................................................... 25

INTRODUCTION

What if there could be something that mixes the charm of wooden toys with the enchantment of the interactive ones? The following document gathers the necessary information to understand the key aspects of the Final Master Project, as well as the process undergone through the M2.2 semester and the design decisions taken to get to such result. What started from a very personal interest in small wooden playthings, evolved as to become a quest to find the “sweet spot” between wood and digital technology as a means to fulfill the needs of children with disabilities. Understanding of the context, understanding of the materiality and aesthetics of wood, as well as understanding of the possibilities of new digital technologies, all in relation to play, became the three main pillars of the followed methodology. Through desk research in occupational therapy, market research on the future of toys and lots of prototyping and testing, I made my way through this project. Experts in the field and new design methods added to my personal inventory have helped my find clarity and focus. Developed in collaboration with Waag Society and Stichting ORION, for children with learning and other associated disabilities (4 to 7 years old) MISC. Magic Toys is a duo of wooden playthings with a hidden magic behaviour. A pair of captivating, computationally enhanced responsive companions that empower exploration through a series of hand gestures necessary to bring them to life, suggesting a particular form of interaction while keeping the toys flexible and playable in a variety of ways. Providing the children with rich sensory feedback as a result of their interaction, MISC. Magic Toys are meant to engage them in the holistic occupation that play is, creating “eureka” moments that seem magic to them. The screenless, physical interactive toys are tangible user interfaces that serve both as inputs and outputs, with no computers or devices involved in order to prioritise tactile, multi-sensory exploration of the play objects. Enjoy reading,

STUDENT

COACH

ASSESSOR

PARTNERS

Ismael Velo Feijoo

Bart Hengeveld

Mathilde Bekker

Stichting ORION Waag Society

GOALS & CONTEXT

lem solving, low IQ) and adaptive behaviors ( Jenvey, 2013). Often, these conditions are comorbid to others such as sensory impairments, language delay and/or the slow development of motor skills. These aspects can have a profound effect in children’s everyday living, including recreation. In terms of play, and according to research, intellectually disabled kids develop play forms more slowly ( Jenvey, 2013), experiencing problems for engaging in peer play (Besio & Carnesechi, 2014), due to their language delays and/or sensory impairments. They also have problems engaging in fantasy play, this last one probably due to the obstacles they undergo in the development of their imagination, associated to the difficulties for abstract thinking (A. Rümke, personal communication, November 11, 2015). “For many of them, the symbolic and rule phases of play remain inaccessible because they are too complicated” (Besio & Carnesechi, 2014). Although findings are conflicting about the level of play development achieved by children with different disabilities ( Jenvey, 2013), it is clear that these children greatly benefit from the act of play, and that without the right to, as well as the adequate environment and materials, they could have limited chances for further progress (Besio & Carnesecchi, 2014).

1.1. CONTEXT & STAKEHOLDERS 1.1.1. Stichting ORION: special education Stichting ORION is a provider of primary and secondary special education, a cluster of schools offering a combination of education and care to children with special needs ranging from 0 to 20 years of age. During this project, my relation with them included discussions with a coordinator in relation to the FMP proposal, feedback from a play therapist working with the students, and constant visits to the Van Koetsveldschool, one of the schools of the cluster, where I accompanied children age 4 to 7 (calendar age) during their play time, choosing them as my target group. 1.1.2. Waag Society: social innovation Waag Society is a non-profit organization working on the coalescence between art, design, science and technology. The research activities of the Creative Care and Creative Learning departments revolve around the role that creative technology could play in education and healthcare. As facilitators of this project, members from both departments gave regular feedback, while the Fablab located at their headquarters in Amsterdam provided me with the prototyping tools and specific knowledge that I needed.

Recreation is an integral part of life that does not necessarily come naturally to kids with certain disabilities for the reasons outlined above. We will see that occupational therapy through play becomes a powerful field to draw from in understanding how to facilitate recreational play for this target group specifically.

1.1.3. Who am I designing for? Disabilities refer to impairments, limitations or restrictions to one or more of children’s physical, cognitive, sensory, language, speech, communication, behavioral and/or social functions, in words of Vickii B. Jenvey (2013), researcher on play and disabilities at Monash University, in Australia. Children with disabilities represent a set of heterogeneous functioning frames very difficult to define. Inconsistencies exist in classifying disabilities, as well as in the study of which unique or interactive effect each disability has on children’s functioning. However, one could agree that children with intellectual disabilities have delays in intellectual functioning (learning, reasoning, prob-

Persona 1

tified in the work of Ariane Rümke, therapist at the Van Koetsveldschool specialised in the use of interventions within the complexity of the children’s naturally occurring occupations. 1.2. INITIAL GOALS & SUMMARY OF PHASE ONE Phase 1 of the FMP ended up with a two parts prototype (see page 11) and a dilemma: continuing the line of digital, modular manipulatives that support something as specific as the development of fine motor skills, or steer the solution towards a set of standalone “magic” toys that draw on the power of enchantment to support kid’s play. After a first briefing given by the client, 4 aspects became relevant for the future toys: they should stimulate the senses, foster the development of fine motor skills, tease fantasy and speak to the imagination, as well as react in an almost magical, empowering way (see M1.1 report for more detailed information).

Persona 2

1.1.4. Play & occupational therapy As supported in the report of phase 1 of the project and in the previous section of these report, play is the children’s self-directed learning activity that contributes to their growth. Through history, a number of educators, from Swiss psychologists Jean Piaget to the inspirational toy designers Frank and Theresa Caplan, have argued in favour of play as a means for children development, and have elaborated specific intervention strategies that enhance a child’s ability to participate in the wonderful occupation that play is. However, and despite the research that indicates that play activities support learning in children, the current emphasis on skills performance has lead to a decrease in play activities and play time in early childhood curricula (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p.303).

1.3. REVISED GOALS AND BRIEF: 1 GOAL, 5 GAINS Short after the beginning of phase 1, a key finding helped in reframing the focus of the project. The insights from the book Play in Occupational Therapy, in which Diane Parham and Linda Fazio (2008) broach the subject of play therapy, lead to the development of a new design brief that can be summarized as: one goal, 5 gains. Although most of the previous requirements remained present and valid, the emphasis changed from the specific, singular focal points mentioned in the previous section, to a holistic approach the main goal became the kid’s occupation of self-directed and intrinsically motivated play.

In occupational therapy (see Glossary, p. 25) the playbased approach, and more specifically, the act of playing with objects (object play), can be addressed in two ways: as a means or as an end (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 231). Used as a means for therapy, play is a tool at the service of the acquisition of performance (motor and process), spatial, temporal and social skills, a therapy lure or reward in the most basic cases that can undermine the potential of child-driven occupations (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 228).

One goal: engagement in play. Drawing from the motivational properties of object play (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 229), the focus becomes the development of a set of toys for special occasions that supports and fosters the kid’s abilities and motivation to play, breaking their limitations on play skills. By giving them a set of responsive sensory toys with the adequate level of complexity and independent response (see Result, p. 7), this project aims to support their commitment to play, drawing on the power of the passive and active sensory properties of the toys, as well as the component of surprise and wonder to induce the optimal

Addressing and supporting the whole occupation of play, and treating it as an end rather than a means, is more interesting for all skills are integrated in natural play. Therefore play, and more specifically, intrinsically motivated play (occupation), should be the goal (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p.228). How to spark and keep this motivation in the children, that is the challenge. This holistic approach to play in therapy can be iden-

level of arousal necessary for a committed play.

the teacher, however small, can be a big gain for the child.

Dealing with children that are in many cases either unmotivated to play, or overaroused, the choice of sensory feedback becomes key for providing both solace and motivation.

• Emergence of fantastic and symbolic play: as

stated earlier in the report, cognitive limitations may affect the ability to enter into make-believe and fantasy play. Opportunities for engaging in symbolic and fantasy play (see Glossary, p. 25) should emerge from the characteristics of the toys, specially in relation to their “magical” sensory feedback and undefined shapes.

Five gains or collateral effects of lasting engagement in play are set to be achieved with this set of toys:

• Spatial discovery: specific features of the toy

should induce a more complex, independent and interesting exploration of the space around the kids. Piaget (1952, 1962) described developmental knowledge gained from the child’s actions on the environment as moving from simple sensorimotor representations of action to more abstract complex representations.

• Sensory integration: beyond its role in keeping

engaged children whose developmental age is locked in sensory driven stages more typical of toddlers than of 7 years old kids, the sensory properties of the toys must contribute to the development of sensory integrative skills. The sensory integration, that is, the organization of sensory input and information for functional use and engagement in occupation, provides the scaffolding for a more complex thinking and doing (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 263). Limitations in play experiences and opportunities, like a constant and unbalanced exposure to visual and auditory stimuli resulting from screen based play, can influence the way in which sensory integrative functions develop (Louweret, M; personal communication, March 2016).

• Acquisition of new fine motor skills: “the inter-

face of the human hand and the physical environment is such a crux of human occupation that object play addressing goals of object contact and manipulation can be generated from nearly any activity that is of interest for the child” (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 234). Drawing on this statement and the multiplicity of goals concerning hand skills, I abandoned the focus on fine motor skills development and assigned this aspect a less prominent role within the holistic approach. However, the toys should suggest a series of interesting hand gestures and spark exploration around them.

• A moment of contact or social interaction: spe-

cific aspects of the toys should spark and support social exchange. Physical contact with other pupils and

RESULT

2.1. MISC. MAGIC TOYS MISC. Magic Toys is a duo of wooden playthings with a hidden magic behaviour. A pair of captivating, computationally enhanced responsive companions that empower exploration through a series of hand gestures necessary to bring them to life, suggesting a particular form of interaction while keeping the toy flexible and playable in a variety of ways. Providing the children with rich sensory feedback as a result of their interaction, MISC. Magic Toys are meant to engage children in the holistic occupation that play is, creating “eureka” moments that seem magic to them.

The duo is complemented with a wooden base featuring the footprint of both prototypes, picking up on the interlocking exercise that was protagonist in the first prototypes. It aims at facilitating the ritual of putting the toys back in place after play, emphasizing the “special occasion” aspect of the toys.

The screenless, physical interactive toys are tangible user interfaces that serve both as inputs and outputs, with no computers or devices involved in order to prioritise tactile, multi-sensory exploration of the play objects. Fanfan

Fanfan

The hardcover of this toy hides a soft and tender character. Dare to squeeze its mushy jowls and you will be rewarded with a breeze of wind. Reminiscent of a hair drying device with round soft lips, its seemingly sinister teeth are nothing but one more peculiarity of its quirky character (as well as a tool of self defence!). Milled from a block of beech wood, the main body features two soft pressure pads in both sides that trigger the axial fan when squeezed. The back and the front pieces (3d printed in ABS), complement the toy’s character and prevent the fanblades from being accessed by children fingers.

Clermin

Clermin Seen from above, Clermin might come across as distant and reserved. Nothing further from the truth! This lively, sensuous creature will purr like a cheery cat during playtime. Milled from a block of beech wood, its two copper pads work as metallic “belly bottoms” able to sense the tickling of two fingers and trigger the tiny vibration motor located inside. Like a running vehicle or a jolly pet, the vibration can go on while the wooden balls are shaken like a rattle or rolled over the skin..

The duo of toys and the home base

Detail of Fanfanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s back

The multipurpose wooden balls

The duo of toys and the home base

2.2. USER TEST Play tests were performed at the Van Koetsveldschool with individual children (calendar age 4 to 7, developmental age around 2). The tests took place during their free play hour, and unambiguously indicated that the engagement with the toys is high, far beyond the attention span often shown by kids of the targeted developmental age. Although a new toy is almost always interesting, the repetitive committed attention and motivation shown by the same kids in different play tests support this conclusion as confirmed by the teachers present.. Above all, the toys support holistic, open ended play. Their interactive as well as their textural and tactile features make them highly entertaining in an active way. Therefore they can facilitate the “occupation”, which is the main goal in play therapy sessions. These sensory properties (both active and passive) are key not only for the interest shown, but an aspect that genuinely provides pleasure and solace to the kid and prompts the sharing of the found experience, driving social play and contact between kids and/or the teachers. The somewhat abstracted visual language of the shapes allows the toys to become multiple things the kids could want them to be, from a hair dryer to a fantasy creature, or from a bumper car to an alien. Other common elements like limbs and wheels drive the interaction, give rise to functional and symbolic play, and foster contact with other peers as well as discovery of the space around.

A moment of the final playtest

2.3. EXPERT REVIEW Verifying the prototypes in early stages of development with experts in the field of toy design and play therapy served to justify preliminary and future decisions concerning the goals of the toys and its nature. In an early conversation with Mathieu Gielen, assistant professor in Industrial Design at TU Delft and expert in the field of children’s play and informal learning, it became clear that the opportunity for self-stimulation that the toys offer to the children is a promising aspect to pursue, giving full credit to the use of the sensory channels. In addition, the need for control that the children showed during the first play test (wanting to alternate a lot, turn the toy on and off for example) was addressed through the addition of easy and natural triggers (press and touch) as suggested by the professor.

Although the development of new fine motor skills by the children in play is an aspect impossible to validate on a short run, the manipulative and explorative nature of the toys has by far been substantiated. The sensory integrative improvement (amelioration of sensory modulation), is also difficult to prove, but can be deduced given the tactile richness of the stimuli during play in comparison with other more ocular and auditory driven toys.

For her part, Ariane Rümke confirmed her belief in the therapeutic aspect of MISC. Magic Toys as tools that can work very well in engaging the kids in the occupation of focused and conscious play involving high levels of self-stimulation, something not always easy to achieve. She reinforced the potential that the collection of toys could have as starters and supporters of children’s self-directed play patterns versus other more standardized therapeutic strategies. The key factor for this positive evaluation was that the prototypes combine a number of different aspects such as sensorimotor, tactile, responsive and enchanting.

All the aforementioned effects observed during play, while not goals of the toys on their own, are collateral effects that can be argued to be beneficial and that otherwise would need to be instilled by the play therapist. In this case the therapeutic aspects are partially or entirely embedded in the toys themselves. Page 11 describing the results of the individual playtests outline concrete findings, anecdotes and supporting evidence.

are therapeutic “ These toys. As a therapist, I

can use normal toys in a therapeutic way, but with these ones, the therapy is intrinsically part of the play

“

Ariane Rümke

This is a toy that “doesn’t jump at the

“

kid

Mathieu Gielen

PROCESS & REFLECT

time span of the tests. However, given the fact that the toys have been conceived as playthings for special occasions, further exploring this potential was beyond the scope of this project.

3.1. CONCEPTUAL FIT 3.1.1. Simplicity as driver for complex play Early on in the process it became clear that there was a thin line between designing enchanting interactive toys and designing pure entertaining instruments, and that it would not be easy to devise toys that spark the interest and motivation of interactive toys but do not stop children from developing their own imagination. One of the parents interviewed at De Zaailing strikingly described toys with lots of light and sound as “little casinos” that in their experience indeed give kids all the interactions and responses they crave for, but also interrupt their thinking, consequently turning them into expectators rather than creators. The choice of simple action - reaction combinations was primarily driven by this thought: the simpler the response of the toy, the easier for the kid to invent around it.

In summary, if the toy’s complexity and responsiveness was to be higher, the assumption is that children with cognitive disabilities might feel less in control, and the possible inability to cope with a more “eventful” toy might carry low self esteem, directly affecting how they perform and interact with the toys and the environment (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 305). However, this scenario has not been explored and the idea of developing a range to ‘grow into’ is a very appealing future vision. 3.1.2. Playtest 1: wood joint & fan The first play test performed at the Van Koetsveldschool (after an early exploratory visit without prototypes) had the primary goal of analysing the adequacy of the fine motor skill exercise proposed, as well as the appeal of the “reward”. As mentioned, the goals radically shifted shortly after, when the project was reframed towards play as occupational driver in therapy. The prototype tested relied on a “one-way” joint between two modules as a switch (inspired by the classic japanese cross shaped stub tenon joint) and two felt pads with conductive thread that allowed the current transfer between the battery and the fan.

But what about the challenge? It is known that the interest is quickly lost in toys that don’t present any challenge to the kid. Are these then simplistic onetrick toys? Where is the balance to be found then? The answer is most likely in the target group addressed with this project, their capabilities and their needs. Kids from the ORION school they tend to play in much more concrete terms than their neurotypical peers, engaging in less sophisticated play levels that keep them distant from the fantastic play patterns present in typically developing children (Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 222). As it seems, the simplicity of the toys allows the kid to move on more easily through the different stages of play: exploration, functional play, variation and integration [1], as suggested by professor M. Gielen and observed during the tests. While the ambigüity of the shapes and details engages the children in the exploration of the toys, the discovery and quick mastery of the toy’s reaction (functional play) seem to have a motivational and positive emotional effect on them. The simple features of the prototypes (active and passive), soon after become inducers of symbolic play (variation), in which children use the prototypes pretending they are something else, often involving other people around them like teachers and other kids. The potential of the toys to be integrated in other play activities, becoming tools rather than the central elements of the play, is difficult to asses in the short

Outcomes and insights:

• Immediate and steady involvement in exploratory play, as well as euphoric engagement with the pleasure of the wind effect for a rather long time span considering what is normal for this type of kids.

• Need for a layer of control that allows the kid to

utterly command the toy in a logic way. As it was, the toy remained on if the pieces weren’t actively disconnected (and no incentive was presented to do so). Children showed their desire to control and play with the fan by poking it and trying to block it with long, thin elements.

• Suggestions that soft elements would enrich the

textural properties of the toy. Kids were verbally very explicit when they noticed the felt bits on the pro11

totype, exclaiming in surprise that they were “zacht!” (Dutch for soft). Soft textures proved to be specially attractive in contrast with a hard material.

extra layers to explore. At this point the goals of the exploration started to shift away from the fine motor skill exercise to the benefits of a more holistic sensorimotor play.

• Use of mischievous interactions as productive design force. The desire that the kids showed in inserting their fingers inside the toy was seen as a potentially interesting point to foster their attraction and commitment to the toy in future prototypes. Sticking fingers into holes is the main interaction for Clermin.

Outcomes and insights:

• Sensory feedback sparks very intimate and phys-

• Sensory feedback also prompted spontaneous au-

• In other words, the sensory feedback is a strong

• The modular aspect of the toy collection starts los-

• The social play induced by the highly sensory response of the previous prototype proved to be present as well with the vibration in the second one.

ical play, to the extent that children can spend long stretches of time blowing the fan to their own, or other kids’ cheeks, ears and mouths directly.

tostimulation, as well as steady engagement with the toy, positioning itself as the main element to pursue in the future of the collection.

prompt for social play. Kids that normally exhibited rather individualistic play behavior spontaneously shared their “findings” with other kids and teachers during the playtest.

ing significance on behalf of the sensory properties. The main point of a japanese joinery-like collection of toys was to present the kids with an assortment of computationally enhanced fine motor skills exercises. However, nearly any kind of manipulative exercise has the potential to address this goals [Parham & Fazio, 2008, p. 234] as long as the children commit to them. Engagement in occupation (that is, commitment with play) becomes thus the main goal.

First set of prototypes developed

3.1.3. Playtest 2: wood joint, vibration & blowing

Set used for the second play test

The second play test presented to the kids an extension of the series by giving them a first prototype of what later would become Clermin, the second toy. The prototype was a round device with a vibration motor inside, and again the same wood joint as onoff switch. The module, round and featuring a set of small wooden balls, had to be powered with the same battery unit but could be stopped by blowing to a little built-in microphone or shaking it like a rattle. The blowing or shaking was an experiment in adding

3.1.4. Playtest 3: analogue probes Simultaneously to the previously described playtest, a few “analog” toys result of the tinkering session (see page. 19) were presented to the kids. The main intention was to explore the level of abstraction in shape, as well as the instinctive interactions and affordances that the various shapes and textures presented to

• A foam paint roller with a bubble maker-like

the kids, How would they approach and handle the toy? What is their first interaction/reaction to it? The probes included:

wooden ring [4]. The foam paint roller was quickly appreciated for its squishy qualities. Unfortunately the toy quickly lost its physical integrity when the ring was pulled apart from the roller and could not be tested further.

• An object similar to a vehicle or caterpillar made

from a soft shaving brush and a piece of foam [1]. It instilled the rubbing of the brush on other people’s faces, act they seemed to draw great pleasure from.

Probe 4

Probe 1

Outcomes and insights:

• A couple of cocoon-like shells of a bright purple

• Kids behaviour indicated they are very inclined to

color [2]. Blowing inside them or expecting to feel or hear something coming back from the shells became the main exploration pattern.

explore the sensory qualities of the object first (touching with the soft parts with their hands, caressing their own face with the toy, caressing others with it, listening if it makes sounds, etc.)

• The playtest prompted a definite shift in empha-

sis toward sensory, standalone toys: the more sensory feedback a toy gives, the higher, longer and more social the engagement with the toy. Occupation becomes the primary goal, bumping motor skills to position of one of the five ‘gains’. Modularity becomes a less significant goal, although it has potential for prompting fine motor skills exercise. Probe 2

• A heavy glass knob with a hairy and rubbery

3.1.5. Playtest 4: finger grip & vibration

head-ball [3]. Quickly lost its physical integrity when the tactile element was heavily handled, and could not be tested further.

The fourth playtest was fundamentally and exploration of the ergonomic validity of a standalone version of the vibration prototype. Standalone is referred to as a toy that can work on its own, in contrast to the two-part toy with the wood joint of the previous versions. The choice of a touch switch to trigger the toy’s behaviour over the two part combination responded to the need for more incentives to play with the intensity of the feedback. This prototype would be triggered by placing 5 fingers in 5 holes on top of the toy. The holes were lined with felt and conductive thread,

Probe 3

turning them into a switch. One test objective was to validate the ergonomics of this interaction design. Although a promising element of a multi-sensory interface, the use of the microphone was discarded for this prototyp because the combination with the vibration motor resulted in a positive feedback: the microphone was automatically set off by the sound of the vibration motor.

6) were expected, although some of them might need a longer play time to emerge.

Outcomes and insights:

The main novelties present in the last versions of the prototypes were the tangible interfaces: the soft pressure pads and round copper pieces that worked as triggers for the toy’s behavior. The base that serves as “home” for the prototypes was also new for the kids, drawing a big part of the attraction and substantially driving the exploration.

• Ergonomics are a challenge: the five fingers grip

Outcomes and insights:

inspired by some physiotherapy exercises is too difficult and the affordance notably unnatural. Moreover, the need for space in order to integrate all five holes makes the toy too big for the children’s hand size, and is consequently also too heavy.

• Self-stimulation and stimulation of others be-

comes the main drive. Without prompts from me or the teachers, kids roll the balls on other people’s backs and blow at their face and hair with the fan. Eureka, the moments of contact are numerous and present even in children that often show rather egocentric play patterns.

• Rolling elements encourage spatial exploration

and social play. Kids would imagine the toy to be a vehicle or a massage tool depending on the situation. Moreover, the rolling elements enhance playability on another layer, separate from the motor. This became evident when the motor failed during the playtest. Protuberance of the rolling elements is a key factor, because it allows the toy to be rolled over skin and soft surfaces such as clothes.

• “Play as-if ” emerges immediately. Fanfan quickly

becomes a hair dryer and Clermin a massager. Consequently, the kids become “stylists” and “caregivers” in their own way of the people and characters they are confident with: the teachers and the other toys. An ideal scenario would include a future integration of the toys in other everyday life and play activities.

• Both prototypes encourage a great deal of ex-

ploration of the environment. While the wheels are a common element that sparks object movement through space, the desire to find light things to blow at and move with the fan encourage a very detailed exploration of the environment, specially outdoors. Surprisingly enough, girls seem to immerse in longer stretches of play with the toys. According to the vision of one of the teachers, “they tend to like more subtle feedback while boys appreciate it “tough and strong”.

• Delicate manipulation of the toys happen espe-

Stand alone version of the vibration prototype

cially in relation to the home base, where kids seem to expect things to happen after they fit the toy inside its footprint. Extra feedback for this action could add a nice feature to the ritual of putting the toys back in place.

3.1.6. Final playtest The last playtest, performed with the final versions of Fanfan and Clermin, aimed at proving that the toys facilitate the main goal of engaging children in steady, extensive and self-directed play. Some clues concerning the presence of the 5 therapeutic gains (see page

• Ergonomics aren’t ideal yet. Due to constraints in

the size of the hardware, the fan prototype is a bit too big to grab as envisioned, and kids have to use both hands to press the pads, or grab it in a way that makes

orienting the air flow a bit more difficult.

â&#x20AC;˘ Inevitably, kids try to put their fingers and other toys inside the prototype equipped with the fan. The new design safely allows this without it becoming a mischievous behavior that needs to be blocked. However, more opportunities could be drawn from this observation and implemented in future prototypes.

Sensory stimulation of the self and others becomes the main drive

A child attempting to fit the toy in its place on the home base

Exploration of the environment outside the class

Detail of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;teethâ&#x20AC;? protecting the fanblades

The toys displayed on the classroom shelves

3.2. DESIGN & AESTHETIC DEVELOPMENT

3.2.2. Openness through shape, size & ergonomics.

abstraction:

3.2.1. Ideating Following the production of a first basic prototype in semester one, the findings in literature (see page 5) as well as experts revision indicated that generic and more abstract shapes give children the opportunity to bend the toys to their own reality, ultimately raising the play value of the toy. Both final prototypes, under my point of view, are good examples of this, but the paths that lead to its respective shapes are different for both.

The ideation and conceptualization phase, that stretched throughout the whole academic year, happened fundamentally in 2 seemingly opposed but complementary ways:

• Starting with a vague knowledge about the target

group and the experience I was gaining in electronics design and production at the beginning of the year, I set out to explore “magic powers” that could be given to the children through the interactivity of the toys, as a way to seek some sort of meaning in the interaction.

In the case of Fanfan, the “wind blower” toy, the form is highly determined by its function, for the air flow is the most important constraint concerning the shape. Size wise, housing the hardware inside a sturdy wooden toy that wasn’t too big for the children’s hand became the most challenging aspect. The addition of tiny legs and a mouth with teeth responds to other functional constraints, but those are fairly universal features that turn the toys into generic creatures rather than specific animals.

The intention was to search for ways of instilling in the children some sense of wonder, empowering them to, for instance, “manipulate wind” or “bring objects to life”. This stage was followed by a phase of indiscriminate sketching and prototype building aiming at implementing the “magic” in its simplest possible form, and the aesthetic result was highly conditioned by the functionality of the toy.

For Clermin, the “purring” toy, constraints related to the integration of technology were seldom problematic, but a few iterations were needed to find the right size, as well as the choice of reducing the number of fingers needed to trigger the toy’s behaviour.

• On the other hand, and being a fairly weak spot in

my -rather analytical - design process, I embraced the opportunity of a more embodied and intuitive ideation method, free from requirements, consisting of the creation of potentially interesting playthings from a strictly formal point of view. The process, carried out in collaboration with Loes Bogers (expert in new craftmanship & maker culture at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences), started with with a bunch of well-curated materials (old wooden objects and parts mainly) and ended with an exhibition showcasing the collection of 30 “frankentypes” creatures created through “thinking with material in hand” (Silver, 2009, p. 245). Although almost none of them were implemented directly, the process greatly contributed to “overcome the sense of paralysis experienced when it comes to giving physical shape to ideas” (Bogers, L. 2016), and inspired the creation of many more “magic” wooden toys.

The collection of “creatures” result of the tinkering session

deal of time trying to understand and learn to work the material as a part of a more hands-on approach. However, I kept being questioned about it and I kept having to convince myself (and others) about the role that wood plays in this context and why it is not simply a wrap material whose protagonist is negligible in relation to the toy’s functionality. Here are the reasons:

3.2.3. Giving personality to match toy’s behavior I personally like the twist that Hartmut Esslinger (founder of Frog Design) gave to the famous quote “form follows function”, paradigm of the modernist industrial design, turning it into a “form follows emotion” that better suits the principles of contemporary design. In any case, and although the prototypes’ shapes were rather functionality-driven, there was a need to give them some personality in line with the kind of action they performed. Renders and three dimensional mockups were made to explore how little variations in size and proportions shifted the toy’s personality, giving them a more or less “quirky” or “grave” look. In the case of the blowing prototype, a lifting in the back makes it grow apart form the strict T-shape of the first version. In case of the vibration prototype, the narrow grooves around its perimeter make a naturally heavy looking block seem much lighter.

• The evocative nature of the material. It is not

trivial that the entirety of parents interviewed at De Zaailing employed the “harmony”, “authenticity” and “charm” of the material as arguments for their choice. There is a certain unconscious, nostalgic and almost mystical association between wood and good quality play.

• The sensory properties of wood. The aesthet-

ic quality of the material goes far beyond the visual aspect or its function, being a pleasure to touch and smell.

• The timelessness and simple appeal associated to

the relatively uncomplicated shapes that the material properties ask for.

• The mechanical properties of the material, offering sturdiness and resilience at a reasonably low density (if the choice of wood and the design decisions are appropriate).

2D renders of different characters for Fanfan

• Develop the children’s taste and appreciation for

quality. “If the child is exposed to beautiful mobiles, posters, rattles and toys, made of wood and other natural products, as an adult she will help create a world with the same high standards” (Stephenson, 2010).

• Sets the healthy framework for a more focused and calm play, preventing some forms of common abuse over more malleable materials (A. Rümke, personal communication, November 2015).

• Contribute to a responsible and more sustainable

3D foam models of the same characters

environment and lifestyle. “The future of toys includes the use of materials that feel good to the kid and look good in your home [...] because millennial parents have the desire to own less” (Wilson, 2016).

1.8.4. Color & materials Several times during the project development I found myself facing the dilemma whether wood should be the material of choice for the toys. Working with wood was a central motivation for the development of the design proposal and I even dedicated a good 17

Assortment from which the pieces of beech wood were selected

Color wise, the choices became limited by the availability of conductive materials for the tangible interfaces, as well as the desire to find a set of colors that built on the natural beauty of wood. Aspects like the safety of the coatings conflicted with its accuracy for rendering details or the adequacy in relation to the material coated. The expectations had to be adjusted for the final color scheme, becoming a negotiation between all these aspects in which a water based light gray spray was chosen for the 3D printed parts of wind blowing prototype, and a thick, dark orange acrylic paint was chosen for the less accessible groves of the vibration toy.

Color selection process

Fanfan

Wood case

Fabric

Conductive fabric

Conductive foam

LiPo battery

PCBs

PCB standoffs

Pressure pads

Back

Screws

19 Lips

Axial fan

Wood case

4. TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT

4.1. Exploded view and assembly

Copper pads

Screws

Wood case top

PCBs + Motor

PCB standoffs LiPo battery

Screws

Wood case middle

Wooden balls

Wood case bottom

Clermin

4.2. Electronics design & integration The smooth integration of the electronics hardware is highly restricted by the size that the toys must have in order to fit the kid’s hands. Being able to design and make the printed circuit boards attuned to my needs (in terms of size and features) was fundamental for this integration. This ultrapersonalized electronics production method however, obliges you to redesign and remake a new board every time a new capability needs to be added to the design.

Detail of the wood casing with some of the other elements inside

The board designed to fit in one of the round prototypes

As a part of designing natural interactions with a natural materials, a few tactile interfaces were explored and tested as triggers of the toy’s reaction, including a wood joint as a mechanical switch, a microphone as a ‘blowing’ sensor or a piece of felt stitched with conductive thread. In the end, the choice was for conductive fabric and foam combined as a pressure sensor, as well as round copper pads as touch sensors.

Detail of the wood casing with some of the other elements inside

Explorations for the optimization of the pressure pads

DISCUSSION

working as catalyzers for parent to child and child to child relations.

5.1. THE FUTURE OF TOY DESIGN No. I am not going to immerse myself in the discussion of whether technological toys are better or worse for children’s imagination and development. Neither will I argue in favour or against the role that smart toys have in making children smarter. What I have been arguing since the development of the FMP proposal, however, is that there is very little offer between the low-tech reality of simple wooden toys and the high-tech, often screen based reality of digital ones. The middle ground is mostly held by plastic, beeping and blinking play objects (“little casinos”). Not much has been made with the intention of combining the good old values with the digital oriented ones, I argued in my project proposal, and the desire of parents wishing to see more toys that “mix the charm of wooden toys with the enchantment of interactive ones” seemed to confirm it. But is that really true?

The next section will be a business evaluation taking the idea of responsive wooden toys further. The specific target group that was important during this master’s project will move slightly to the background. The rationale being that designing for young kids with disabilities basically comes down to designing for a certain developmental age. The most significant aspect of design where it shows that these kids calendar age doesn’t correspond with their developmental age is in ergonomics: the kids are older than neurotypical kids in this developmental stage, so their hands are bigger. It seemed like a more worthwhile effort for the toys’ future as well as my personal goals as a designer to consider here the business opportunities of such high-quality responsive wooden toys for kids. Any kids.

The digitally connected physical toys are a trend that more and more players in the design industry are following. From Frog design Yibu, a set of toys embedded with sensing technology that bridge the physical with the screen based play; to the Avaikai doll, a statement on how 21st century play can be screenless… but still full of sensors. But they are not so numerous or available yet, which means that there is probably plenty of room for designers to continue exploring these opportunities and develop solutions that the market (and specially millennial parents) is craving for.

5.2. BUSINESS EVALUATION The following section includes a small business evaluation, not from the perspective of turning MISC. Toys into a successfully marketable product, but as an initial assessment of what it would take to continue doing the same kind of design practice in the field of creative playthings. In essence, the following business model canvas show an overview of the activities and resources necessary to run a design studio that focuses on the development of beautiful playthings that place timeless aesthetics at the forefront, providing quality in terms of materials, design and play. While the focus of the studio would be the development of socially relevant projects in collaboration with key partners like ORION, the model explores how the revenues from other customer segments can fund the social innovation. Among the other key activities, the development of concepts and ready to produce, high-fidelity prototypes for toy companies that rely on design partners (Areaware) or companies that don’t exclusively produce toys but share the same values than the studio (MUJI). Among the ultimate customers, millennial parents that are willing to spend more money on toys that contribute to their quest for a more beautiful yet simple, sustainable lifestyle.

Beyond the question of technology (everyone agrees by now that having kids less time “parked” in front of the screen is important), it looks clear to me that certain aspects need to change (or adapt) in the toy landscape to match some realities. The first one is related to sustainability in the broadest sense of the term. As Mark Zeller, head of design at Fisher Price, say: the parents, the younger millennial parents, do have that desire to own less [...] and they will be buying fewer, higher-quality products and toys” [in Wilson, 2016], so toys will tend to have a higher, longer lasting value. This does not only involve the use of more sustainable and good looking materials, because “they have to feel good to the kid and look good in the home”, but the choice for simpler and more minimalist aesthetics that bring back the timelessness and intergenerational aspect of the good old toys. Moreover, future toys should not replace but foster human interaction, 22

23 - Partners

- Software & Hardware

- Prototyping material (and tools)

- Product / interaction designer

- Conceptual / visionary human resource

- Prototyping facilities. (e.g. Makerversity)

- Provides consultancy on technical design or prototyping of third partiesÂ´ ideas within the realm of playthings.

- Develop concepts for analog and interactive toys into exclusive one-off, limited edition toys or high-fidelity prototypes, ready for manufacturing by third parties.

- Studio + prototyping facilities

- Play Therapists

- Schools (e.g. ORION)

- Marketing & Communication

- Distribution company

- Hardware & Software manufacturer

- Industrial manufacturer

- Design stores (e.g. WonderWood)

- Antroposophic stores (e.g. De Zaailing)

- Provider of educational tools (e.g. Heutink)

- Share vision / co - creation

- Dedicated personal assistance

- Asset sale

- Licensing / royalties

- Service /consultancy

We make beautiful playthings that place timeless aesthetics at the forefront, providing quality in terms of materials, design and play.

MISC. Magic Toy Studio

- Millennial parents

- Schools (e.g. ORION)

- Companies not maniufacturing toys but with whom the studio shares an aesthetic value (e.g. MUJI)

- Toy companies that rely on design partners (e.g. Areaware)

May 2016

5.3. CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE STEPS At this moment in time, approaching the end of a whole academic year dedicated to the unfolding of what started as a vague idea, I would like to find back that father who, with the light-hearted tone of a conversation on the street, challenged me to design playthings with the charm of wooden toys and the enchantment of interactive ones. Unlikely to happen (that I find the man again), I cannot do anything but wonder whether or not he would be pleased with the set of toys introduced by the present document. Whatever the case may be, I can confidently say that I have outlined a certain direction for the design of good looking reactive toys with a relatively high play value. The research and the kids response give me the idea that MISC. Toys are serious candidates for supporting engagement in play occupation, and although equipped with relatively simple technology, they are an example of what designers can do to fill in the gap between analog and digital toys, being more the physicalization of a design vision than a marketable product. The future will hopefully bring improvements in the the prototypes (affordance, hardware integration and optimization, addition of intensity control, more soft and touchy bitsâ&#x20AC;Ś) as well as the development of new prototypes based on the tens of ideas generated. Dutch Design Week 2016 seems to be a good time for unveiling other members of this ever growing family of miscellaneous magic toys.

REFLECTIONS

beginning of the academic year were substantially attained. Being able to identify what makes me genuinely happy on a daily basis working as a semi-professional design practitioner, I have spent a considerable amount of time in the workshop and in many cases, I have achieved the balance between hands on and conceptual work that is ideal for me to joyfully thrive through the design process. The satisfaction of learning new electronics related skills and improving old ones went far beyond expectations, and the aesthetic and formal refinement of my final designs leave me more than fulfilled. The feeling of attaining enough maturity as a designer has substantially contributed to the way I communicate about my work, enriching my own professional network and positioning myself in the field. However, I could practice sharing my work more on a daily basis, and work a little less independently to not compromise my network opportunities within the environments I work.

6.1. EXPERTISE AREAS & COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT

• Wood design and woodworking: starting with a

basic training in traditional woodworking and ending with the the most complex and delicate pieces that I have ever made in wood, I gained a great deal of understanding of what it means to design with wood in mind and produce pieces in this material using digital fabrication and traditional techniques, but beyond that, I explored a somehow new role for traditional craftsmanship in the contemporary design world.

• Electronics design and production: following

the Fab Academy program on electronics was fundamental to carry out my vision on digital wooden toys. Hands on and applied learning for one of the most complex areas of contemporary design practice, I am especially satisfied with the integration of technology and excited to participate in the aesthetic growth and maturity of an ever growing technological world.

6.3. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT & VISION

• Tangible interfaces: big part of what the toys are

The feeling that the present project grew beyond the boundaries and scope of the FMP is a good feeling. Still pursuing a vision more rooted in the design principles of usefulness with a lyric quality and the quiet sophistication of simple products outside any specific context, somehow the romanticism of toy design seems to be a good fit for me. This, together with the fact that play won’t probably leave the podium of design topics in the near future, convinces me of pursuing my vision within the topic of play and social innovation. Moreover, sticking to a context for a while will most definitely allow me to gain depth and confidence, something I have been missing when vaulting among topics. The vision and expertise gained could then be extrapolated to other fields of interest in the near future, hopefully.

rely on the magic and enchantment of the interaction with them. Exploring the integration of soft and tactile electronics brought my skills even one step further.

• Aesthetics development: in the broadest sense of

the word and in reference to the qualities that go far beyond the visual aspect and into the way a product is perceived. Working on the visual language of the toys and its consistency with their behaviour was a fantastic exercise of form and senses.

• Play theory: one the biggest collateral effects of

this project was the depth I gain in understanding how the act of play contribute to children’s development, gaining perspective and cultural awareness on the topics of toy design in general and children with disabilities in particular.

In professional terms, the present project has given me two main things: awareness and maturity. Awareness, as in the skill of being able to identify what every part of the process asks for and the attitude that is required, as well as the aspects that get me trapped and prevent me from indulging myself in a well balanced process. Probably the most revealing fact about myself as a designer the I have learnt throughout the year is that I don’t want to work alone and try to cover the whole design process, but find (or create) an environ-

6.2. PERSONAL GOALS & PDP Except for the inquiry into the business side of the project, which remained smaller and less deep that I would have wanted, the rest of the goals outlined in the personal development plan developed at the

ment where my attention to detail is valued to a great extent, where the product substantially gains value in association with this attention for detail and aesthetic appeal, and where I am entitled to participate in the conceptual design process without having to take the lead.

REFERENCES Besio, S. & Carnesecchi, M. (2014). The Challenge of a Research Network on Play for Children with Disabilities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 9 – 14 [online] Retrieved at: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814047338> [Accessed November 2015]. Caplan, F. & Caplan, T. The Power of Play. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1974.

As for the design maturity, this was the ultimate goal I was pursuing when enrolling on a Masters Degree (I have never been a title driven person). Although my projects might still be a little distant from the profesionalism I envision and cherish for myself, I think I am doing a fairly good job advancing towards a more integrated and consistent profile.

Bogers, L. (2016). Ideation Techniques for Toys [online]. Retrieved at: <http://www.loesbogers.com/ index.php/2016/02/25/ideation-techniques-fortoys/#more-2902>. Accessed June 2016.

GLOSSARY Jenvey, V. B. (2013). Play and Disabilities. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online] Retrieved at: <http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/Pages/PDF/ JenveyANGxp1.pdf> [Accessed November 2015]. Levy, J. Play Behavior. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978.

Functional play: pre symbolic activity in which an infant uses an object in a functionally appropriate way relative to his or her body, thereby demonstrating awareness of how the object is conventionally used, for example, raising an empty cup to the lips as if to drink.

Parham, L. D. & Fazio, L. S. (2008). Play in Occupational Therapy for Children. U.S.A: Mosby Inc.

Occupational therapy: treatment focuses on helping people with a physical, sensory, or cognitive disability be as independent as possible in all areas of their lives.

Silver, J. (2009, June). Awakening to maker methodology: the metamorphosis of a curious caterpillar. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, p. 242-245.

Sensorimotor play: called also Practice play, it is the purely autotelic experience focusing on motion and sensations, without the elements of make-believe or the socially shared rules. It predominates during the first 2 years of life and gives name to Piaget’s developmental stage corresponding this age range.

Stephenson, S. M. (2010). Birth to Three, a Superior Environment. In The Joyful Child: Montessori, Global Wisdom for Birth to Three. Arkata: The Michael Olaf Company.

Sensory integration: the organization of sensory input/information for functional use and engagement in occupation.

Weber, S. & Ogata, A. F. (2014) Swedish Wooden Toys. New York: The Bard Graduate Center, 2014.

Symbolic play: when the child uses something pretending is something else. The child uses something or someone “as if ” it were something different. Children interact and play with sticks “as if ” they were guns or with a sibling “as if ” she or he is a cat.

Wilson, M. (2016). The soft, screenless future of toys, according to Fisher Price [online] Retrieved at: <http:// www.fastcodesign.com/3058030/the-soft-screenlessfuture-of-toys-according-to-fisher-price>. [Accessed March 2016]

Oral stage of development: the first psychosexual development stage in which the mouth of the infant is his or her primary erogenous zone. Kids in this stage get much satisfaction from putting all sorts of things in their mouths.

SPECIAL THANKS TO: Loes Bogers, Bart Hengeveld, Dick van Dijk, Karien Vermeulen, Marjolein Duchateau, Jelka Bröcheler, Ariane Rümke, Mathieu Gielen, Emma Pareschi, Ruud Ruijzenaars, Luca Boscardin, Lotte Bergen, Ellen Groot, Myrthe van Gijzel, as well as Tristan, Unai, Tessa, Olivia and the rest of ORION kids. My family, friends and you, reader.