Designing the Internet of Toys for and with Children: A Participatory Design Case Study
This chapter critically reflects on a participatory design (PD) approach that was used by an interdisciplinary team to design new Internet of Toys applications for the home and school environment (the WOOPI project). PD aims to empower people in the design of technology and is characterized by three core principles: having a say, mutual learning and co-realization. Overall, the project was positively evaluated, but adhering to PD’s principles proved to be challenging due to conflicting agendas among the project partners, the target group’s young ages (4–6 years) and a tight project schedule. Based on the lessons learned, six guidelines are presented to adhere to PD’s core principles and strengthen users’ participation, including children, in the design of connected toys.
KeywordsParticipatory design Internet of toys Connected toys Children Rights of the child
This study was part of WOOPI (http://bit.ly/1F24wRO), a cooperative-PLUS project facilitated by (former) iMinds Media and funded by the IWT for participating companies. Ethical clearance from the ethics committee (SMEC, KU Leuven) was obtained during the project. The authors are grateful to the project partners and the children, parents and teachers who participated in the research and design activities.
- Bleumers, L., Mouws, K., Huyghe, J., Van Mechelen, M., Mariën, I., & Zaman, B. (2015). Sensitivity to parental play beliefs and mediation in young children’s hybrid play activities. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 170–177). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Bratteteig, T., Bodker, K., Dittrich, Y., Holst, P., & Simonsen, J. (2013). Methods: Organising principles and general guidelines for participatory design projects. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bratteteig, T., & Wagner, I. (2012). Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers—Volume 1 (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design—Principles and practices (pp. 41–70). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Kensing, F., & Greenbaum, J. (2013). Heritage: Having a say. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
- McReynolds, E., Hubbard, S., Lau, T., Saraf, A., Cakmak, M., & Roesner, F. (2017). Toys that listen: A study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5197–5207). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Muller, M. J. (2002). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook (pp. 1051–1068). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
- Read, J. C., & MacFarlane, S. (2006). Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 81–88). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Robertson, T., & Simonsen, J. (2013). Participatory design: An introduction. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NY: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163–174.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.
- Van Mechelen, M. (2016). Designing technologies for and with children: Theoretical reflections and a practical inquiry towards a co-design toolkit. Doctoral thesis defended in June 2016, UHasselt—KU Leuven. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2tDS0te.
- Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Zaman, B., Van Mechelen, M., & Bleumers, L. (2018). When toys come to life: Considering the internet of toys from an animistic design perspective. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 170–180). New York: ACM.Google Scholar