> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Kirby Urner > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Edu-sig] Interaction Design and Children > I keep meaning to make some points regarding the Jan 2005 issue of > 'Communications of the ACM,' which has this article entitled per my > subject > line -- set or articles actually. > > Probably the main bit of PR is we learn of new fields: of human-computer > interaction (HCI) and of a sub discipline thereof: Interaction Design and > Children (IDC).
There is a clear limit: One cannot design around the fact that the child is interacting with an extremely complex machine we cannot ask or expect them to understand. IOW, we cannot design around the fact that there is something quite substantial up our sleeves (and the child necessarily experiences it as such). We can try to ignore this design limitation, we can argue against its significance - but we cannot design it away. I am of the opinion that it is an extremely important design limitation - depending (one can argue) on what we are trying to accomplish. But I guess there is nothing I consider it important to accomplish than can ignore the existence of this limitation. And therefore wonder why this obvious limitation is never addressed as such. And why so many avenues for creative play that don't have this inherent design limitation are not more importantly pursued. And why - at this time - there is so much more seriousness attached and resources applied to such inherently limited pursuits, versus those that exist and have existed with less substantial inherent limitation. The answer of some combination of fashion and forces is the best I can up with it. Or else it is philosophical/mass psychological - we need to believe we are can progress through technology toward some end and in some clear direction which could not otherwise be achieved. Solving some ultimate cryptography puzzle, or something. Googling our way to salvation. Maybe I have paying too much attention to mathematics. None of this seems plausible, to me. > I may be meeting with Arthur pending no schedule conflicts (none that I > know > of) on Monday, as I'm routing through NYC to points north. North to your friends at Design Science toys I'm thinking. A wonderful catalog of stuff, IMO. Concrete, creative playthings. Limited - true enough - by the inconveniences of earthly physics, when compared to a more virtual approach. But that's a good limit to absorb, early. Perhaps childhood should continue to be devoted to it. Looking forward to continuing our dialogue in person. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
