The play pyramid: a play classification and ideation tool for toy design

Abstract

Toy designers and students may benefit from a universal classification system to communicate and ideate new toy concepts. In this paper, we present two graphical tools that help designers to classify and manipulate toy product concepts. The play pyramid is a three-dimensional map that allows designers to classify a toy concept by placing it in a space between what we believe to be four independent axes of play (sensory, fantasy, construction and challenge). The sliding scales of play are modifiers or adjectives that one can use to further describe the play of a toy concept. By taking a toy design and moving it around inside the play pyramid or along the scales of play, the design can take on new and unforeseen play affordances. Both of these tools have been tested and applied in industry sponsored research and design education settings and were successful in expanding upon toy ideas.

Evaluating the Impact of Design Affordances in Preschool Children's Toy Preferences

“…Such stimulations can affect the human senses, through changes in sounds and movement of the toy, but can go to psychological levels, through play activities that are aimed at providing fun and entertainment. Kudrowitz and Wallace (2010) state that an artefact "must intentionally produce affordances for playing" in order to be considered as a toy. Norman (2013) defined a product's affordances as the visual cues that give an indication to its function and use through its perceived and actual properties.…”

“…Thus, from a designer's perspective, play affordances define how the user will play with the toy product which in turn, play affordances determine the play value of the toy, that is, the probability "that a toy will be played by the user, (or) a measure of the benefit of the play, (or) the amount of, variety or length of play, (or how much a toy) affords play (i.e. it affords activities that are enjoyable, captivating, intrinsically motivated and process focused)" (Kudrowitz and Wallace, 2010).…”

“…Based on the gathered data, different prototypes shall be produced to evaluate how the toy could perform during play. Kudrowitz and Wallace (2010) claim that the purpose of toys (i.e. play) can be defined by one or more of the four play dimensions: Sensory, Construction, Challenge and Fantasy.…”

The value of toys: 6–8-year-old children's toy preferences and the functional analysis of popular toys

“…Sutton-Smith (1986) has observed that toys have meanings in relation to bond and obligation, solitariness, consolation, technology, education, agency and market. Through cultural-semiotic analysis, researchers have found that toys may enshrine views of gender and ethnic-based roles (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006;Wright, 2003), or allude to gender, race and ethnic stereotypes (Best, 1998;Kline, 1999;Martens, Southerton & Scott, 2006;Sherman & Zurbriggen, 2014). To have toys and to know what toys one should have are forms of children's cultural knowledge that may be transformed into social capital among peers (Kalliala, 1999;Puroila & Estola, 2012).…”

Found in Translation: Bringing Reversal Theory to Design for Play

“…Understanding and using play as a vehicle for progress is the most prominent approach to both the psychological study of and design for play in children (Ackerman, 2004;Sutton-Smith, 1997). Design for play has been to a large extent informed by cognitive (Piagetian) and social constructivist (Vygotskian) theories of development and to a lesser extent by psychoanalytical theories such as Eriksson's stages of development (for example Kudrowitz & Wallace, 2010;Nicolopoulou, 1993;Rogoff, 1990).…”