[Edu-sig] Interaction Design and Children

[Arthur]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: edu-sig-bounces at python.org [mailto:edu-sig-bounces at python.org] On
> Behalf Of Kirby Urner
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:20 PM
> To: edu-sig at python.org
> 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