![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithRigamajig is a large-scale building toy, like a cross between playground equipment and an erector set. It has wooden boards, pulleys, giant nuts and bolts, etc. It's pretty cool.
I like the concept. I don't like the fact that it comes without instructions. The product caters so hard to touch-dominant kids (who are less likely to read instructions or follow examples, and more likely to figure it out by playing) that it undercuts sight-dominant or hearing-dominant kids who find instructions inspiring. No, I don't think prompts are enough. For the most talented kids, sure. For average kids? They may not know where to start, and thus lose interest in something really neat. While I'm happy to see something that caters to a terribly underserved group, I'm less keen on doing that in a way that undermines others; having instructions doesn't mean you have to read or follow them if you don't want to, but if they aren't there and you need them, then you're out of luck.
Lego has the right idea with their generic kits: explain what the pieces are and how they work, show some sample projects, then encourage kids to invent their own. The samples teach how to use the pieces. Once you know that, you can branch out into making your own designs. Sure, you can dump a bucket of blocks in front of kids without explanation, and they'll typically figure out how to stick the things together and make simple shapes. But with Lego you can make a car that actually works -- if you know how. Building more elaborate structures requires either a great deal of innate talent, or good instructions. I loved the basic kits, sure, but I learned more from the instructions on how to build a lunar lander. My mechanical aptitude isn't high enough to think of all those things myself, but I can certainly learn them out of a book, and once I know what they are, I can recombine techniques for my own purposes.
I think if I were selling build-it toys, I would offer instructions for touch-dominant, hearing-dominant, and vision-dominant kids and I'd ask for input from friends in each of those learning modes to make sure the instructions made sense. The touch-dominant instructions would be a flat card saying something like, "These are the pieces in your kit. (pictures, names, number of each) Use your hands to explore what you can make with them. You don't need anyone to tell you what to build; you can figure it out yourself!" This is also what I'd recommend for kids with high mechanical, spatial, or kinetic aptitude. There's something very freeing about having instructions that officially give you permission to do whatever you want. The hearing-dominant instructions would be a video showing and describing the pieces, and how to build at least a couple of different projects. That's good not just for kids who need to hear instructions, but also those who have a hard enough time that both hearing and seeing will enhance their understanding. I'd use a diverse set of demonstrators, so this option would also be supportive of kids who need to see that yes, this toy is for boys and girls, people of all races and ability levels, etc. The vision-dominant instructions would be a standard booklet with some pictures and lots of words, explaining the parts and some basic ways they go together, moving on to sample projects and then prompts for further exploration.
Which set of instructions should you use? Some parents might know their child's learning mode outright and could just request that. But almost all of them will know whether their kid habitually ignores instructions in favor of hands-on learning, loves reading the manual, prefers watching a video or listening to a recording, does better observing something before doing it themselves, etc. For a little extra work, you have vastly expanded the number of kids who can use the toy and will keep doing so rather than losing interest.
Fortunately in the age of the Internet, lacks like this are easy to fix if parents want to. Anyone can create a better set of instructions if the packaged ones aren't suited to their or their child's needs. Writing and posting is simple. The tools for making images or videos aren't much more complicated, and some people find those easier than writing lots of words.
This also has the advantage of letting kids share ideas with each other. If you have a disability, what would you build? Something that you can play with, which is never a guarantee when you get toys designed for non-disabled kids. Maybe you'd build a car track that runs the route and then returns the car to your hand, instead of shooting it across the room where it's hard to chase.
Ideally, though, it's a maker's responsibility to present a complete product. People generally expect instructions to be part of that, and if there aren't any, that runs a high risk of frustration that will undermine future sales. If that happens, a nifty toy could go out of production for a reason that would've been very easy to fix. That would be even more disappointing.
I like the concept. I don't like the fact that it comes without instructions. The product caters so hard to touch-dominant kids (who are less likely to read instructions or follow examples, and more likely to figure it out by playing) that it undercuts sight-dominant or hearing-dominant kids who find instructions inspiring. No, I don't think prompts are enough. For the most talented kids, sure. For average kids? They may not know where to start, and thus lose interest in something really neat. While I'm happy to see something that caters to a terribly underserved group, I'm less keen on doing that in a way that undermines others; having instructions doesn't mean you have to read or follow them if you don't want to, but if they aren't there and you need them, then you're out of luck.
Lego has the right idea with their generic kits: explain what the pieces are and how they work, show some sample projects, then encourage kids to invent their own. The samples teach how to use the pieces. Once you know that, you can branch out into making your own designs. Sure, you can dump a bucket of blocks in front of kids without explanation, and they'll typically figure out how to stick the things together and make simple shapes. But with Lego you can make a car that actually works -- if you know how. Building more elaborate structures requires either a great deal of innate talent, or good instructions. I loved the basic kits, sure, but I learned more from the instructions on how to build a lunar lander. My mechanical aptitude isn't high enough to think of all those things myself, but I can certainly learn them out of a book, and once I know what they are, I can recombine techniques for my own purposes.
I think if I were selling build-it toys, I would offer instructions for touch-dominant, hearing-dominant, and vision-dominant kids and I'd ask for input from friends in each of those learning modes to make sure the instructions made sense. The touch-dominant instructions would be a flat card saying something like, "These are the pieces in your kit. (pictures, names, number of each) Use your hands to explore what you can make with them. You don't need anyone to tell you what to build; you can figure it out yourself!" This is also what I'd recommend for kids with high mechanical, spatial, or kinetic aptitude. There's something very freeing about having instructions that officially give you permission to do whatever you want. The hearing-dominant instructions would be a video showing and describing the pieces, and how to build at least a couple of different projects. That's good not just for kids who need to hear instructions, but also those who have a hard enough time that both hearing and seeing will enhance their understanding. I'd use a diverse set of demonstrators, so this option would also be supportive of kids who need to see that yes, this toy is for boys and girls, people of all races and ability levels, etc. The vision-dominant instructions would be a standard booklet with some pictures and lots of words, explaining the parts and some basic ways they go together, moving on to sample projects and then prompts for further exploration.
Which set of instructions should you use? Some parents might know their child's learning mode outright and could just request that. But almost all of them will know whether their kid habitually ignores instructions in favor of hands-on learning, loves reading the manual, prefers watching a video or listening to a recording, does better observing something before doing it themselves, etc. For a little extra work, you have vastly expanded the number of kids who can use the toy and will keep doing so rather than losing interest.
Fortunately in the age of the Internet, lacks like this are easy to fix if parents want to. Anyone can create a better set of instructions if the packaged ones aren't suited to their or their child's needs. Writing and posting is simple. The tools for making images or videos aren't much more complicated, and some people find those easier than writing lots of words.
This also has the advantage of letting kids share ideas with each other. If you have a disability, what would you build? Something that you can play with, which is never a guarantee when you get toys designed for non-disabled kids. Maybe you'd build a car track that runs the route and then returns the car to your hand, instead of shooting it across the room where it's hard to chase.
Ideally, though, it's a maker's responsibility to present a complete product. People generally expect instructions to be part of that, and if there aren't any, that runs a high risk of frustration that will undermine future sales. If that happens, a nifty toy could go out of production for a reason that would've been very easy to fix. That would be even more disappointing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-20 08:31 pm (UTC)Okay...
Date: 2014-12-21 07:27 am (UTC)Undermining
Date: 2014-12-20 08:38 pm (UTC)I would be bugnuts inside an hour with the same setup. I want /names/ of things if nothing else. Single pulley. Compound pulley, just LABELING the parts would jump start my thinking.
My older son wanted to build THE MODEL from the Lego instructions, with the exact color of brick, not just size. After that, he was completely creative, but he had to match specs and had a very-near-zero fault tolerance. HE woudln't touch the toy unless there were an instruction booklet and a demo project using 5-8 pieces (plus wing nuts and bolts).
Hubby.. Sorry, hubby would've already absconded with the WHOLE KIT while writing this email and be halfway through building something intensely complicated which uses all but two or three pieces of the whole kit. Instructions? Meh.
That's just ONE HOUSEHOLD.(Admittedly, of people who /are/ interested in expanding our opportunities to play as adults.)
Clearly, the set /as it is currently offered/ would not appeal to all four of us as a solo activity, and in a group activity the two more cautious people would have LESS input, marginalizing them even MORE.
If each person had been able to play with the set INDEPENDENTLY, without having to SHARE--another major problem between spatial-dominant thinkers and those who aren't as fluent-- there would be a more equal footing when they DO have to start compromising.
I come at this knowing how underserved hubby's and youngest son's learning styles were, and with strong, sincere efforts to help the youngest in particular. And I still see major flaws with the way it's presented, because the price tag puts it out of reach of INDIVIDUALS, which means it'll be marketed to schools and Boys and Girls clubs, or Gifted Enrichment activities.
Re: Undermining
Date: 2014-12-21 07:42 am (UTC)Good idea.
>> I would be bugnuts inside an hour with the same setup. I want /names/ of things if nothing else. Single pulley. Compound pulley, just LABELING the parts would jump start my thinking. <<
Yes, exactly. I also like the kind of instructions that give a list of parts, so I can make sure everything is there and also figure out whether I have enough pieces to make what I want. This model starts with 4 corner angles, so if I want to make 4 stories then I need 16 of that piece. If the set only has 12 then I know I can only make a 3-storey model. And laying out the whole set to count everything by hand is a pain in the ass. For kits that didn't come with numbers, I made my own list and wrote it inside the lid, but I always resented having to do that. There was no way to know if the factory had shorted me a piece or put in an extra of a different kind.
>> That's just ONE HOUSEHOLD.(Admittedly, of people who /are/ interested in expanding our opportunities to play as adults.) <<
There are fannish households like that with kids. When I was little, I probably would've fooled around with it for a little while and lost interest for lack of instructions, and my parents -- who have far better home handicraft skills than mine -- would've made something cool with all the pieces.
>> Clearly, the set /as it is currently offered/ would not appeal to all four of us as a solo activity, and in a group activity the two more cautious people would have LESS input, marginalizing them even MORE. <<
That's about what I figured. I'm really glad for the confirmation from someone with those kinds of traits in the family.
>> If each person had been able to play with the set INDEPENDENTLY, without having to SHARE--another major problem between spatial-dominant thinkers and those who aren't as fluent-- there would be a more equal footing when they DO have to start compromising. <<
Yep. Most people with a strong sense of teamwork come from the logical-mathematical or emotional intelligences. They're good at talking out teamwork and collaboration. Kinesthetic learners, less so, and the mechanically inclined tend to have a whole idea in their heads and want to build THAT THING, which leads to a lot of fights over blocks and Legos if there aren't enough to go around.
>> I come at this knowing how underserved hubby's and youngest son's learning styles were, and with strong, sincere efforts to help the youngest in particular. <<
That's frustrating.
>> And I still see major flaws with the way it's presented, because the price tag puts it out of reach of INDIVIDUALS, which means it'll be marketed to schools and Boys and Girls clubs, or Gifted Enrichment activities. <<
I couldn't even find a price, which pisses me off. If you're going to put your product online, it really needs to have a price on it. That way people can see whether or not they can afford it. Making them ask just wastes everyone's time.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-20 11:35 pm (UTC)My grad-school roommate, Ted Kaehler, was at one point working on a construction set made of PVC pipe and fittings. It occurs to me that one could make special-purpose fittings (e.g. dome connectors) out of wood.
This kind of kit seems to be a perfect application for a CNC mill. CNC mills and 3-d printers have the potential to open a whole new world of construction "toys", now that I think of it.
Yes...
Date: 2014-12-21 12:38 am (UTC)If I were planning a kit, I'd think about combining joiners for 3D printing to include ones for string, straws, cardboard, etc. that would make it easy to build lots of different things. Then give some examples.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-21 05:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-20 10:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-22 07:05 am (UTC)Yes...
Date: 2014-12-22 07:51 am (UTC)