Why “Design For Play” is better than just “Designing Toys” for Cas Holman? What is the difference? Do you agree with this?
- I like the idea of “Design For Play”. From my understanding, “Design For Play” focuses on creating experiences and leaves people more autonomous playing space. On the other hand, “Designing Toys” means creating an object with a specific function and limited users’ creativity. So that the idea of “Design For Play” allows user to create from imaginations rather than simply following instructions, which highlights the process of creativity and innovation.
How does Cas Holman’s definitions of toy and play align or differ from what you defined last week?
- Cas Holman defines “toy” as a tool to stimulate creativity and defines “play” as an intuitive process.
- While I thought toy is the object gathering designer’s creative ideas and play is the action allowing recreation.
- Her definition of toy highlights designers’ efforts in encouraging users’ creativity and extends play to an intuitive and continuous learning process rather than a short-time action.
Discuss in the concept of “Play Value” as you understand that term from the movie or other resources. Analyze your favorite from this point of view. Are there any skills that this toy allowed you to learn when you played with it?
- “Play Value” refers to the engagement, creativity, and learning a toy provides. High play value means a toy can be used in multiple ways, encourages skill development, and remains engaging over time.
- From this perspective, jigsaw puzzles have moderate play value because:
-
- They help develop skills like problem-solving and pattern recognition.
- They offer a clear goal, providing a strong sense of accomplishment.
- However, they have only one play method and fixed solution.
- The skills I learned from the puzzle is problem-solving, pattern recognition, patience and focus.