Why “Design For Play” is better than just “Designing Toys” for Cas Holman? What is the difference? Do you agree with this?

The phrase “designing toys” sets a rigid category especially on people’s perception, as Cas described. Cas specifically explained that the word “toy” gives an immature, childish, unserious impression of what they design. There is an issue with this mindset, because always treating children childishly will affect their development and exploration. Moreover, “design for play” refers to the experience rather than the product, which broadens the possibilities, breaking down any preconceptions, and leaving more room for imagination. As an analogy, it can be compared to Cas’s exercise where they ask students to design “something to get you to school” rather than a “car.”

I agree with this phrase because mindset and imagination when working on projects (especially design processes that require creativity) are extremely important. Many toys are copy-paste following some type of formula and it can be argued that many major toy manufacturers rely more on the popularity of IPs and franchises rather than the creativity in the design of the toy and its interactive experience.

How does Cas Holman’s definitions of toy and play align or differ from what you defined last week?

I described toys as objects that can be interacted with that provide enjoyment or entertainment, and these interactions as Play. As pretty abstract definitions, I think my understanding still mostly aligns with Cas’s definitions. The “toys” that Cas designs do provide enjoyable or entertaining experiences, but an additional goal of theirs is to make these experiences enriching for their development (like in an intuitive, educational way). They seem to define “play” as something that should have this enriching aspect to it.

Discuss in the concept of “Play Value” as you understand that term from the movie or other resources (readings, searching online, etc). Analyze your favorite toy from this point of view. Are there any skills that this toy allowed you to learn when you played with it?

In my understanding, Play Value refers to what you get out of interacting with a toy or the act of playing. Cas’s goal with designing toys like Thingamajig was partially to raise the “play value” by providing situations requiring the children to think, encounter challenges, figure things out, and ultimately learn. This kind of enrichment represents play value to me.

The fluffy pipe cleaner toy did give me some learning experiences, since I had some trial and error when twisting and turning it. The process wasn’t as simple as it seemed. The best part that allowed for my enrichment is how easily the pipe cleaner bends could be undone and redone, which made me less afraid of making mistakes and more willing to try out bending different lengths and angles. If the toy was less forgiving, I probably wouldn’t have redone my mistakes and finished making the toy leaving a dissatisfied, unhappy result. The play value was increased for me because knowing I perfected the toy through multiple tries made the result even more rewarding.