IDC 2008 - Papers
Key issues for the successful design of an intelligent,
interactive playground
Janienke Sturm1, Tilde Bekker1, Bas Groenendaal2, Rik Wesselink2, Berry Eggen1
1 2
Department of Industrial Design
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
P.O.Box 513, 5600MB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
{J.Sturm, M.M.Bekker, J.H.Eggen}@tue.nl
ABSTRACT
An Intelligent Playground is an environment with
interactive objects that, using advanced technology such as
sensors and actuators, react to the interaction with the
children and actively encourage children to play. Thus, an
intelligent playground stimulates children to move and play
together. In this way, it provides for a healthy alternative
for popular pastimes such as computer games and
television.
We propose a design research agenda for Intelligent
Playgrounds, identifying key issues regarding the design of
these playgrounds: social interaction, simplicity, challenge,
goals and feedback. We illustrate these issues by referring
extensively to related work in this area. In addition, we
present our design approach, initial findings and future
plans on the basis of two case studies of new intelligent
playground concepts.
Author Keywords
Intelligent playground, play, interactive systems, digital
augmentation, design research
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.2 [User Interfaces]: Interaction styles, User-centered
design.
INTRODUCTION
With the growth of the Internet, the availability of
increasingly advanced computer games and an abundance
of television channels, children spend a large amount of
time behind the computer screen and in front of the
television, at the expense of physical and outdoor play.
Several studies have identified this as a possible
explanation for the growing number of children with
obesity [e.g. 18, 26]. Moreover, social interaction in the
physical everyday environment must nowadays make way
for communication in the virtual (i.e. digital) world.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute
to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
IDC '08, June 11-13, 2008 Chicago, IL, USA
Copyright 2008 ACM 978-1-59593-994-4... $5.00
July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA
Creative Conversion Factory
P.O.Box 775, 5600AT Eindhoven
The Netherlands
{Bas.Groenendaal, Rik.Wesselink}
@creativeconversionfactory.com
Companies like Sony and Nintendo respond to the health
issue by developing game controllers that require physical
movement (for example, the Nintendo Wii and the Sony
Playstation2 dance pad and eye-toy). However, this type of
products does not take the children away from their
computer.
One way to address both health and social issues is by
enriching outdoor play in a way that appeals to children,
thus making the outdoor playground a more attractive
alternative to computer and television. A playground
provides children with opportunities for free play and
enables them to play together and be physically active. In
this way, playgrounds contribute significantly to the
physical development of children, but also improve their
social, emotional and cognitive skills. Together with
industrial partners, we are exploring opportunities to
enhance childrens playground experience by incorporating
digital technology, such as sensors and actuators. To this
end, we are developing various Intelligent Playground
concepts: environments with one or more interactive objects
that use(s) advanced technology to react to the interaction
with the children and actively encourage children to play.
This type of object can, for instance, measure the behaviour
of the children and use this information to provide direct,
motivating feedback or to adapt the games to the level of
the children. Intelligent playground objects enable children
to play games individually, but especially in groups. In this
way interactive playground objects stimulate and motivate
the children to move and play together. The Intelligent
Playground is designed as part of a public space, such as
playgrounds, parks and recreation areas. These
environments are freely accessible by a child or a group of
children on their own initiative, which is essential in order
to make for an alternative leisure activity.
In our work on Intelligent Playgrounds we follow a design
research approach. The aim of our research is to find out
how the playground experience can be enhanced by using
advanced technologies. The findings will be translated into
heuristics that guide the design of intelligent, interactive
playground objects. The concept of an Intelligent
Playground has much in common with other types of
258
 IDC 2008 - Papers July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA

entertainment, such as computer games and pervasive

games. Pervasive (or location-aware or augmented reality)
games are a new type of game that brings the gaming
experience from the world of computers and the internet
towards the physical environment of the game player, by
wireless and location-based technologies [3, 14]. For
example, in the Ambient Wood project a pervasive
educational game was developed where children could
explore a technology-enhanced wood [20]. Another
example is Can You See Me Now, a chase game for adults,
which is played both online in a virtual city and on the
streets of an actual city [3]. While both pervasive games
and Intelligent Playgrounds use advanced technology, the
main difference is that Intelligent Playgrounds are often
restricted to a specific location, whereas pervasive games
can be played anywhere. Previous research has proposed
numerous sets of heuristics for computer games and
pervasive games as well as for traditional playgrounds [e.g.
6, 8, 15, 17]. Although these sets of heuristics cannot be
directly applied to Intelligent Playgrounds because of the
differences between the various fields, they serve as a
source of inspiration for our research. Figure 1 SmartUs. (Photograph reproduced by permission
So far, we have conducted a wide range of design research of Yalp)
projects on related topics such as the balance between
eating and exercise [25], intelligent playground objects [1], The Interactive Pathway [21] is another example of an
and innovative sports concepts for children [2]. Based on interactive playground installation. It is a responsive
our work so far, and existing work in related fields, we playground element consisting of two separate path
propose a design research agenda for Intelligent sections. Each path section is composed of two wooden
Playgrounds, identifying key factors influencing the design beams with five pressure-sensitive mats attached to the
of these playgrounds. We illustrate these factors by wood. When a child steps on a mat, a motor that is attached
referring extensively to related work in this area. In to the wood next to it will start spinning. Thus, when a child
addition, we present our design approach and future plans walks or runs through the pathway, it is accompanied by the
on the basis of two case studies of new intelligent motors spinning one-by-one. The interactive pathway does
playground concepts. not have any predetermined activities; instead the simple
RELATED WORK design enables open-ended play patterns. As a result,
This section provides a non-exhaustive overview of related children may use the pathway for all kinds of self-made
work concerning interactive playgrounds. The products and games. Water Games [16] is a large-scale interactive
projects listed were selected on the basis of their relevance installation for children. It combines interactivity with a
to our topic and the availability of detailed background game in a natural and non invasive manner. The installation
information. was conceived for the Universal Forum of Cultures
Barcelona 2004 and designed to transmit the three main
A first category of products that are relevant for an
ideas of the Forum of Cultures: respect towards cultural and
intelligent playground concerns interactive playground
ethnical diversity, conditions for peace and sustainability.
installations. For instance, in the SmartUs project [24] an
Water Games can be activated by people forming rings and
interactive installation was developed where children take
spinning around the installation. A water fountain at the
part in a live computer game and help determine the
centre of the ring and sequences of jets of water are
course of the game through the technology. A SmartUs
activated while, and only as long as, the ring remains
environment (see Figure 1) consists of a set of basic
completely closed and in motion.
elements: a central unit that controls all actions (iStation),
poles with built-in sensors (iPosts), an interactive grid A second category of objects that could inhabit an
(iGrid), and identification labels (iTags) that interact with intelligent playground is formed by playground props:
the iStation through sensors on the iPosts. In addition, the movable objects that children bring to the playground to
installation provides a software package that enables the enhance their play. For instance, a Morel [10] is a soft
users to create their own games. cylindrical object, approximately the size of a basketball or
a soccer ball. It can be kicked and thrown like a ball (see
Figure 2 on the next page).

259
 IDC 2008 - Papers
Figure 2 Morels. (Photograph reproduced by permission
of Kenji Iguchi)
Wireless communication enables the Morels to be 'aware' of
each other. When a Morel senses the existence of another
Morel close by, it will emit a sound to notify the player. It
will also make a sound when another Morel has left the
vicinity. While other Morels are nearby, a player can
'charge them up' by squeezing his or her Morel. If the
charging player lets go and squeezes the Morel once again,
charged Morels will launch themselves. Like the Interactive
Pathway, the behaviour of Morels does not contain rules for
specific games, and players are encouraged to either play
known games with it or improvise their own. Another
example of a playground prop is the Space Explorer [22,
23], an animated digital playground roller that moves on the
ground and interacts with children. Children encounter the
roller during outdoor play, where it is activated by their
presence. This will trigger the roller to respond to engage
the children in reciprocal play. The roller may behave
expectedly as well as unexpectedly, for example: the ball
may initially roll down a hill as expected and then turn
around and return towards the child. It must be noted that
the Space Explorer described in the paper was still in the
prototype phase.
The third category of products for our intelligent
playground is interactive floors. For example, Lightspace
Play [11] is an interactive floor surface consisting of tiles
that can display any colour, pattern or image. The surface is
able to detect location, movement and density of players.
Reactions to player movements are displayed on the surface
and accompanied by sound effects. The system can store
and run a potentially limitless variety of games and
interactive programs. The Ada Floor [5] is another example
of an interactive floor. It can sense the presence of persons
and provide output in the form of different colours of light.
The Ada floor comes with several games. In the most
commonly used game, Football, users chase and try to
jump on a virtual ball that is indicated by a brightly lit white
tile. The virtual ball moves around, bouncing off the walls
and the users while producing appropriate sound effects.
July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA
Collisions with users increase the speed of the ball, while
successfully jumping onto the ball results in a victory
reward; winners are surrounded by a halo of light that
grows and fades away. Tangible tiles [13] are an example
of a building block concept for creating playware
technology (i.e. the use of intelligent technology to create
the kinds of leisure activity that are normally labelled play).
Tangible tiles are components for a new kind of playground
on which children can experience immediate feedback on
their motions. Various games were implemented on the
tiles. In one of the games, the colour race, children compete
against each other (more children can play in groups) by
first choosing one of six colours and then jumping quickly
on the tiles so that they turn into their colour. A specific
sound, associated with a specific colour, is played when a
child jumps on the tile that lights up in the associated
colour.
Finally, a similar concept to the interactive floors, though
on the vertical axis, is the interactive wall. DigiWall [12] is
a combination of a standard, artificial rock climbing wall
and a computer game. The interface has no computer
screen; instead the climbing grips on the wall act as a very
low resolution, mono-chrome display. It provides children
with feedback in the form of sounds and music, thereby
making climbing more fun and encouraging physical
activity. DigiWall comes with several games, which require
the player/climber to respond to sound cues by touching
grips or positioning themselves on the wall. The games are
based on competition and speed, co-operation and
thoughtfulness or creative challenges. Sound provides most
of the necessary information to play a game.
KEY ISSUES
Inspired by work that has been done in the related areas of
computer games and traditional, non-interactive
playgrounds as well as by closely related work as presented
in the previous section, we identified five dimensions that
we consider to be of key importance for the design of an
intelligent playground. We are aware that there are many
important issues that playground designers have to take into
account, such as safety, material properties and
maintenance. However, we focus on issues that are related
to the intelligence of the playground.
As was already mentioned in the introduction, supporting
social interaction is one of the main aims of the Intelligent
Playground. Children should be able to walk-up and use the
playground equipment without the help of a parent or
teacher. Therefore, simplicity is an important factor as well.
Challenge is well-known to be a crucial factor for a game to
be fun. In the context of designing an Intelligent Playground
it requires special attention, since it provides an opportunity
for designing for a combination of physical, cognitive and
social challenges. Goals and feedback are closely related to
the issue of challenge, as will be explained below [15].
Since an intelligent playground combines the overall open-
ended play opportunities of traditional playgrounds and the
260
 IDC 2008 - Papers
explicit goals of (computer) games, design research on
goals should examine how to design for an optimal
combination of these two approaches. Finally, feedback
plays an important role in providing motivation and fun.
For intelligent playgrounds design of feedback has to find a
balance in providing motivation, not being too intrusive for
the environment and being suitable to open-ended and goal-
directed play.
For each of these issues, we provide a general description
of the concept in relation to intelligent playgrounds,
followed by an overview of how the issue has been
addressed in the projects mentioned in the previous section.
We also provide an anecdote from one of our own projects
to illustrate some related design considerations.
Social interaction
Since playgrounds are intended to be used by multiple
users, social interaction is one of the key components of
playground design. When designing playgrounds the
emphasis should not only be on physical development, but
also on social interaction [9]. Designing for multiple users,
instead of single users leads to specific design
considerations, such as support for turn-taking and division
of roles. Moreover, Malone and Lepper mention that
interpersonal issues, such as collaboration and competition
are important factors for motivation [15].
Many of the projects mentioned in the Related work
section support social interaction in the sense that they
allow the children to collaborate in teams and/or play
against each other. For instance, in one of the games for the
Ada floor (Boogie) collaboration is an essential aspect.
Boogie is a collective dance game or prototype automatic
disco. Groups of users should collaborate and dance to
drive the rhythm and volume of the dance mix. Inactive
participants who simply stand or walk about are ignored, so
a few active dancers can easily dominate the rhythm of the
entire space. The DigiWall and Tangible Tiles offer a range
of games that are mainly competitive in nature, although a
couple of them do require users to collaborate in a team.
The Water Games installation is unique in the sense that it
explicitly supports only collaboration: children have to
collaborate by forming rings and spin around an object in
order to make the water fountains appear.
Since both collaboration and competition are important
reasons why children enjoy playing sports [15, 27], it is
good to combine both approaches in a design. We designed
various games for an intelligent product to practice soccer
skills [2]; some games required both collaboration and
competition to reach the intended goal. For example, for the
Last Team Standing game, a team competed with another
team to ensure that they would be the last team having
points in a count down, depending on whether you kept the
ball out of your own play space. The results of a user test
confirmed that children liked the combination of
collaboration and competition.
July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA
Simplicity
Another important design dimension for intelligent
playgrounds is simplicity. Not only because easy to use
and hard to master is an important computer game design
rule [17], but also because intelligent playgrounds are in a
sense walk-up and use systems: children need to be able to
start using them straight away. Simplicity does not
necessarily mean that the games that can be played with the
objects will be too easy; it is possible to create simple
games that still have appropriate challenge. Moreover,
simplicity in a game leaves room for children to make up
their own rules.
Several of the interactive playground projects have paid
attention to the issue of simplicity. In the SmartUs project,
for example, the interface has been specifically designed in
such a way that can be quickly and easily learned by various
target groups, such as children, disabled, etc. Also in Water
Games the choice to have children form rings to activate the
fountain was explicitly made because they would know how
to do this without explanation. This would lead to a natural
interaction and minimize the learning curve. Finally, the
evaluation of the Ada floor illustrates the power of
simplicity: it was found that the complex games that were
designed for the floor were much less effective in engaging
the public than simple games that can be learned by
watching for a few seconds [5].
User tests that we carried out with an intelligent product to
provide children with information about the balance
between eating and exercising [25] showed that a very
simple bracelet with three leds could be used by children
with hardly any explanation. The three leds could be used
for various games, such as playing tag, where the leds
represented the childrens roles in the game: tagger, savior
or runner.
Challenge
Challenge is a factor that is mentioned in almost any list of
design guidelines for (computer) games [e.g. 7, 15]; proper
challenge is neither too easy, nor too difficult, and creates a
sense of achievement and enjoyment. Challenges can be
related to different skills; playgrounds can offer physical,
but also social and cognitive challenges. Often the
challenge relates to the physical performance of the child,
such as speed or agility, but improving performance can
also be related to (cognitive) tactics. Since playgrounds are
often used by multiple users, the challenge can also be
influenced by decisions about competition and
collaboration opportunities. Finally, the way in which
challenge is implemented in the playground has to be
adaptive to the situation and the players, since users can
become more skillful and improve their performance. This
guarantees that the game remains interesting and fun in the
long run.
All products mentioned in the Related work section offer
the possibility to play on different levels of difficulty, either
261
 IDC 2008 - Papers
predefined by the developers, or made up by the players
themselves. One exception is the Water Games installation
which, in its current form, supports only one activity at only
one level of difficulty. Another exception is Tangible Tiles
which does not have different levels of difficulty yet,
though the developers recognize the need for the tiles to be
able to automatically detect interaction patterns and adapt
the play to challenge users at different levels. Besides
offering different levels of difficulty, several products
require specific skills which may be improved to become
better at the game. For example, for the Morels speed is the
most important challenge, whereas for the Digiwall both
climbing and creativity are important skills, as well as
strength, body coordination and control, endurance and
flexibility. In the Lightspace product the different types of
games involve different skills, such as dancing, speed and
endurance.
In our project on designing intelligent products to practice
basketball skills [2], we discovered that when the product
would provide diverse physical challenges, such as
practicing speed and agility, children would combine those.
In this way, they would create alternative social and
cognitive challenges by devising new rules for the provided
games. They would vary the rules for collaboration and
competition.
Goals
Goals have been shown to be very important for the design
of (computer) games. Goals are closely related to challenge.
Providing goals contributes to the appeal of games, and to
the intrinsic motivation of users [15]. However, an
interesting design choice is whether to provide predefined
goals or to allow more open-ended behaviour in which
players can create their own (emerging) goals [15, 23]. An
intelligent playground does not necessarily have a
predefined goal; it may leave room for exploration. It may
let the child discover what the effect of a certain action is
and let him or her develop their own games with their own
targets. By programming simple rules, interesting and
complex behaviour may emerge. Another important
distinction is between short-term and long-term goals. The
proper combination of short-term and longer-term goals can
enable players to have both initial but also longer term fun.
Water Games is an installation with one clear goal, which is
the same for all types of users. The floors - Ada floor,
Tangible tiles and Lightspace play - and the Digiwall are a
bit more flexible, in the sense that they allow users to select
from a set of games with predefined rules and a goal, which
usually have different complexity levels and may involve
different numbers of players. The floors and the wall do not
support children devising their own games. Smartus is
different in this respect, because although the product offers
a pre-defined range of games, the playing objects may also
inspire children to make up their own games. The Morels
and the Interactive Pathway are on the other end of the
spectrum: they dont provide any pre-defined games, but
July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA
allows for open-ended play: the children are free to
improvise their own games based on the interaction with the
playing objects. The evaluation of the Interactive Pathway
indicated that children develop many diverse play patterns
while playing. At least four styles were observed: active
play, fantasy play, exploring how things work, and game-
building. As stated in [20], this type of open-ended play
benefits children significantly in many aspects of their
development and is extremely important to successful
playgrounds.
In our project on designing intelligent products for
practicing soccer skills [2], we found that children enjoyed
both games with explicit goals and those with emerging
goals. We provided them with a few games with explicit
goals. Their initial hesitation to use the novel product
disappeared as its use became apparent in the example
games: they quickly became motivated to create alternative
games. This provided us with initial ideas about the
importance of combining functionality and feedback that
allow both open-ended and explicit goals.
Feedback
Finally, feedback is another central topic related to play and
motivation. In general, interactive systems are systems that
allow the user to influence and react to the behaviour of the
system. Thus, an important aspect of interactivity is
feedback. Feedback enables the user to check whether the
input he/she provided has been received, whether the
system is still working, etc. However, in the design of
games and playgrounds feedback is especially important to
the appeal of the game. For example, the feedback provides
information about whether progress has been made towards
a goal, and thus to the interpretation of whether a challenge
is perceived to be acceptable. The information provided can
be constructive and encouraging and should be related to
the short and long term (emergent) goals. Feedback may be
given in many different ways by using sound, light and or
physical change of objects.
All floors and the DigiWall provide local feedback about
the users actions using light and sound, e.g. a tile (or a grip
on the wall) lighting up in a specific colour when a child
steps on it, or a music fragment being played when a child
reaches a particular grip. Because the floors and the wall
come with pre-defined games, they also use light and sound
to provide feedback related to the goal of the games, e.g.
when a child wins a game, he/she is surrounded by a halo of
light (Ada floor). For the Lightspace Play and the Tangible
Tiles it is unclear what type of goal-related feedback is
provided. The Water Games installation only provides
feedback when the goal of the game has been reached: the
fountains are activated. The Smartus environment too
provides only feedback about long term goals (who won the
game, what was his or her score) on the iStation. However,
the system does not provide local feedback about the
actions of the children. For example, the iPosts do not
provide any feedback on whether an iTag has been
262
 IDC 2008 - Papers
successfully read. The other concepts do not have explicit
goals and rules. Therefore these only provide feedback on
actions, e.g. by sounds and physical changes (Morels) or
spinning motors (Interactive Pathway).
In our project on designing intelligent products to practice
soccer skills [2] we experienced the motivating function of
providing feedback for intermediate goals. For example,
when children practiced passing a soccer ball, they really
enjoyed receiving visual feedback for correct passes, and
the added functionality that they would receive bonus-
points for scoring after five correct passes.
DESIGN CASES
In this section we illustrate how the key issues that were
discussed in the previous section will be addressed in the
design and evaluation of two new playground concepts that
we are developing.
Case study 1: Flash Poles
The Flash Poles [1, 4] are interactive poles which are
distributed on a field and can be used by children to play
various physical games. Each pole has three coloured rings
that can be pressed and rotated. Also, each pole has an
integrated lamp that can light up in the colour of the button
that is pressed or rotated. See Figure 3 for an artist
impression of the Flash Poles.
Figure 3 Flash Poles
The design principle of this concept is to provide children
with as much freedom as possible to create their own
games, in order to stimulate their creativity and motivation.
For that reason, game play with the Flash Poles was kept
very open-ended, i.e. no pre-defined games were
implemented. Moreover, the game controls were kept very
simple (pressing one of the three rings lights up the lamp,
while rotating a ring lights the lamp and switches on a timer
depending on how much the ring was rotated) and only a
few rules were implemented to control the behaviour of the
poles, e.g. when three lights in a row have the same colour,
they will flash three times and then return to their original
colour. This leaves the children ample room to create their
July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA
own games, for example one group tries to get all poles to
light up in one colour, while the other group tries to get
them to light up in a different colour. The group that
manages to light up all poles in the groups colour first,
wins. The Flash Poles concept facilitates social interaction
between children by allowing them to play in teams and
compete against each other. Depending on the games that
are created by the children, Flash Poles offers challenges
relating to physical skills such as running as well as
cognitive skills such as tactics.
A first user test indicated that the Flash Poles concept was
successful in stimulating children to play together and to
compete against each other [4]. The children were eager to
play and came up with several possibilities for competitive
games. Also, they didnt have any problems finding out
about the functionality of the coloured rings. However,
children appeared to have problems in interpreting the
feedback that was provided by the system, for example, it
wasnt clear that the flashing rate of the timer indicates how
much time is left. This points to a more general issue: the
fact that the output possibilities of the playing objects are
limited; in the case of Flash Poles only light is used, in
other concepts light is sometimes combined with sound. In
our research we will further explore to what extent sensible
and useful feedback can be provided given the limited
output possibilities of the playground objects. For example
by looking at the different ways to communicate using light
(e.g. increasing or dimming the light, blinking, changing its
colour) and investigating how these options are perceived
by children.
A related issue concerns the flexibility of the interface. In
order for the feedback to be clear and meaningful, it should
be specific to a particular situation. However, this could
well be in contradiction with the aim of building a flexible,
open-ended system. After all, the more specific the
behaviour of the objects to particular situations, the fewer
games it can be used for. Thus, we will address the issue of
how playground objects can provide meaningful and
motivating feedback related to (progress towards) the end
goal of the game without reducing its flexibility and
possibilities. For example, feedback issues will be
examined by comparing the effectiveness, understandability
and learnability of cumulative feedback (e.g. a light
growing stronger) with feedback that changes in each
situation (a red light in the beginning of the game and a
flashing light when the end goal has almost been achieved).
Case study 2: Ledball
The Ledball is a mobile object that can light up in various
colours when it is shaken or rotated. It contains several leds,
a tilt sensor and microcontroller. Different behaviours can
be programmed on the Ledball, for instance: it changes
colour each time it is shaken or it takes a colour depending
on the angle it is held. The Ledball can be used in various
games involving, for example, running and throwing (see
Figure 4 on the next page).
263
 IDC 2008 - Papers
Figure 4 Ledball
The Ledball can offer open-ended play as well as
predefined games. In an open-ended play situation rules are
not pre-defined, but are meant to be made up by the
children. Probably the children will first investigate the
behaviour of the Ledball. When children understand this
behaviour theyll start defining their own games. This
results in a broad range of game possibilities. The children
are responsible for the complexity or challenge of the game,
since they are the inventors of the games. Predefined games
can be programmed on the Ledball, which enables it to
provide feedback related to the goal of the game. This
feedback makes the Ledball respond to the childs
achievements, but may limit the child to freely explore the
Ledball.
Our design research will address the issue whether and how
we can support children in creating new games. For
example, would it be possible to implement a couple of
games on an essentially open-ended playing object, which
may serve as a source of inspiration for new games? Or
would this hamper the childrens creativity in thinking
about new games? We will also address the higher level
issues of whether our assumption that children like open-
ended play is valid, and whether open-endedness influences
social interaction between children. For example, by
investigating whether children prefer open-ended play (as it
gives them freedom to set their own rules and goals) or
predefined games (as this allows the object to provide
feedback about the rules and goals). To what extent does
this depend on the childrens age and developmental level?
Finally on the design level, we will explore the possibility
to use the games and rules invented by the children to guide
the further design of the object.
CONCLUSION
We presented and illustrated five research issues that we
consider to be of key importance for the design of
Intelligent Playgrounds: social interaction, simplicity,
challenge, goals and feedback. Two new intelligent
playground concepts were presented and we discussed our
July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA
design research agenda by showing how several of these
key issues will be addressed in future research. For example
by investigating whether children prefer open-ended play or
games with pre-defined goals and how to design motivating
feedback. Ultimately, the results of our research will be
translated into heuristics that guide the design of intelligent,
interactive playground objects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Kim Bhre, Joran
Damsteegt, Erik van Erp, Jabe Piter Faber and Frank de
Jong, students of Industrial Design at the Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven, and their coach Peter Peters for
developing and evaluating the Flash Poles.
REFERENCES
1. Bekker, T., Hoven, E. van den, Peters, P., and Klein
Hemmink, B. (2007) Stimulating childrens physical
play through interactive games: two exploratory case
studies. Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on
Interaction Design and Children (IDC07), June 6-8,
2007, Aalborg, Denmark.
2. Bekker, T. and Eggen, B. (2008) Designing exertion
interfaces for children. Position paper for Exertion
Interfaces Workshop, CHI 2008, April 5-10, 2008,
Florence, Italy.
3. Benford, S., Magerkurth, C., and Ljungstrand, P. (2005)
Bridging the physical and digital in pervasive gaming.
Communications of the ACM, 48(3), pp. 54-57.
4. Bhre, K., Damsteegt, J., Erp, E. van, Faber, J.P., Jong,
F. de (2007) Flash Poles. Interim report Industrial
Design, TU Eindhoven. Retrieved at April 4, 2008, from
http://jabe.greyonline.nl/ID/flashpoles/report.pdf
5. Delbruck, T., Whatley, A., Douglas, R., Eng, K., Hepp
K., and Verschure, P. (2007) A tactile luminous floor
for an interactive autonomous space. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 55, pp. 433-443.
6. Ensign, E. (Ed.) (1993) Universal Playground Design.
Retrieved April 4, 2008 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servl
et/ERICServlet?accno=ED359727.
7. Fullerton, T., Swain, C., and Hoffman, S. (2004) Game
Design Workshop, CMP Books, San Francisco, CA,
USA.
8. Hysniemi, J., Hmlinen, P., Turkki, L. and Rouvi, T.
Children's intuitive gestures in vision-based action
games. Communications of the ACM, 48(1), 44-50.
9. Humphrey, J.H. (2003) Child Development through
Sports, Haworth Press, New York, NY, USA.
10. Iguchi, K. and Inakage, M. (2006) Morel: Remotely
launchable outdoor playthings. Proceedings of
International Conference on Advances in Computer
Entertainment Technology (ACE 2006), June 14-16,
2006, Hollywood, California, USA.
264
 IDC 2008 - Papers
11. Lightspace Play. Retrieved at April 4, 2008 from
http://www.lightspacecorp.com/products/lightspaceplay/
12. Liljedahl, M. and Lindberg S. (2006) DigiWall - an
audio mostly game. Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Auditory Display, June 20-
23, 2006, London, UK.
13. Lund, H.H., Klitbo, T., and Jessen, C. (2005). Playware
technology for physically activating play. Journal of
Artificial Life and Robotics, 9(4), pp. 165-174.
14. Magerkurth, C., Cheok, A.D., Mandryk, R.L. and
Nilsen, T. (2005) Pervasive games: bringing computer
entertainment back to the real world. Computers in
Entertainment, 3(3).
15. Malone, T.W. and Lepper, M.R. (1987) Making
learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for
learning. In Aptitude, Learning and Interaction III
Cognitive and Affective Process Analysis, R.E. Snow
and M. J. Farr (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,
USA.
16. Pares, N., Durany, J. and Carreras, A. (2005) Massive
flux design for an interactive water installation:
WATER GAMES. Proceedings of International
Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment
Technology (ACE 2005), June 15-17, 2005, Valencia,
Spain.
17. Prensky, M. (2001) Fun, play and games: What makes
games engaging?. In Digital Game-Based Learning,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
18. Renders, C.M., Seidell, J.C., Mechelen, van W., and
Hirasing, R.A. (2003) Overgewicht bij kinderen en
adolescenten. Elsevier Gezondheidszorg, Maarssen, The
Netherlands.
July 11-13, 2008 - Chicago, IL, USA
19. Resnick, M. and Silverman, B. (2005) Some reflections
on designing construction kits for kids. Proceedings of
the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and
Children (IDC05), June 8-10, 2005, Boulder, CO, USA.
20. Rogers, Y. and Price, S. (2004) Extending and
augmenting scientific enquiry through pervasive
learning environments. Children, Youth and
Environments, 14(2), pp. 67-83.
21. Seitinger, S., Sylvan, E., Zuckerman, O., Popovic, M.,
and Zuckerman, O. (2006) A new playground
experience: going digital? CHI '06 Extended Abstracts
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 22-27,
2006, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
22. Seitinger, S. (2006) An ecological approach to children's
playground props. Proceedings of the 2006 Conference
on Interaction Design and Children (IDC06), June 07-
09, 2006, Tampere, Finland.
23. Seitinger, S. (2006) Animated Props for Responsive
Playspaces. Master's thesis in Media Arts and Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006.
24. Smartus. Retrieved at April 4, 2008 from
http://www.smartus.com
25. Stienstra, J., Hopma, E. and Bekker, M. (2006) Move
it- A persuasive game for 11-year old children. Adjunct
proceedings of Persuasive 06, 18-19 May, Eindhoven,
The Netherlands, pp. 21-25.
26. Vandewater, E.A., Shim, M. and Caplovitz, A.G. (2004)
Linking obesity and activity level with children's
television and video game use. Journal of Adolescence,
27, pp. 71-85.
27. Weinberg, R.S. and Gould, D. (2003) Foundations of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL,
USA.
265