Tango.net R J Download

For over thirty years researchers have suggested that both tangible user interfaces and digital games have potential to support learning. Each domain now has a well-developed body of literature about how to design them to enable learning benefits. What is needed is a way to bring this knowledge, which is often lengthy, dense, and jargon laden to design practice. To address this need, we designed Tango Cards--a card-based design tool. In this paper we report on the design and evaluation of the cards. We found that Tango Cards enabled a variety of uses that made design knowledge about tangible learning games accessible to designers. We identify and discuss how specific card features support or limit use by designers. We draw on our findings to set forth design considerations that may support others to create design tools (card-based or alike) that make academic design knowledge accessible to designers.

Figures - uploaded by Alissa Antle

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Alissa Antle

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

Tango Cards: A Card-Based Design Tool for Informing the

Design of Tangible Learning Games

Ying Deng, Alissa N. Antle, and Carman Neustaedter

School of Interactive Arts + Technology

Simon Fraser University

250 -13450 102 Avenue

Surrey, BC, Canada

[yingd, aantle, carman_neustaedter]@sfu.ca

ABSTRACT

For over thirty years researchers have suggested that both

tangible user interfaces and digital games have potential to

support learning. Each domain now has a well- developed

body of literature about how to design them to enable

learning benefits. What is needed is a way to bring this

knowledge, which is often lengthy, dense, and jargon laden

to design practice. To address this need, we designed Tango

Cards—a card-based design tool. In this paper we report on

the design and evaluation of the cards. We found that

Tango Cards enabled a variety of uses that made design

knowledge about tangible learning games accessible to

designers. We identify and discuss how specific card

features support or limit use by designers . We draw on our

findings to set forth design considerations that may support

others to create design tools ( card-based or alike) that make

academic design knowledge accessible to designers.

Author Keywords

Design tools ; design cards; design practice; ta ngible user

interfaces ; educational games; tangible learning games;

ACM Classification Keywords

H.5.2 Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):

User i nterfaces—Theory and methods;

INTRODUCTION

Interactive technology is rapidly transforming the ways in

which people work, play, communicate, and learn. For over

forty years, researchers have worked to understand how to

harness the motivation power of games to create effective

games for learning. There now exists a robust body of

knowledge about what makes good educational digital

games. For example, Gee analyzed the learning principles

behind good video games in order to determine what makes

them motivating [7]. Fisch put forward design

considerations about how to integrate educational content

into game play effectively [6]. Castell and Jenson proposed

that effective games embed learning material into a broad

range of game elements including character selection, art,

narrative, programming, goals, game structures and play

[5].

In parallel, researchers investigated how tangible user

interfaces (TUIs) may be designed to support learning. For

example, they found that the physical manipulation

involved in tangible interaction may enable learners to

offload elements of mental processes to actions on physical

objects, which may make problem solving simpler [1]. The

physical properties of tangible objects may be used to

represent metaphorically related concepts to help learners

understand abstract concepts [16,20]. TUIs also may be

designed to support collaboration because they may provide

multiple objects with which to interact in larger spaces than

traditional desktop screen-based systems provide [11]. In

particular, Antle and Wise's Tangible Learning Design

Framework [2] represents a culmination of a range of

findings about designing effective TUIs for learning.

Recently, researchers have brought these two research

fields together, proposing that tangible learning games may

be a promising approach that can be designed to support

many kinds of learning. Desi gn knowledge about

educational games (such as [6,7]), and tangibles for

learning (such as [2]) provide rich academic knowledge to

draw on. However, these academically oriented design

guidelines and frameworks are lengthy, dense, and jargon-

laden, which make them hard to use in design practice [12].

Rogers calls for mechanisms of knowledge transfer

between design theory and practice that are "more

lightweight and accessible" than design guidelines and

frameworks [17].

We designed a card-based design tool, called Tango Cards,

to bridge the gap between scholarly design research about

tangible learning games, and the practice of designing such

games. Design tools and methods are a well- established

form of intermediate-level knowledge , with their

abstraction level spanning a broad range [9,13] . Together

with other examples of intermediate-level knowledge, such

as patterns, strong concepts, and heuristics, they serve as

alternative ways to construct knowledge and bring theory to

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. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others

than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit

is permitted. To copy

otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior

specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.

, June 21 - 25 2014, Vancouver, BC, Canada

ld by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.

-1-4503-2902- 6/14/06…$15.00.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598601

practice [9]. In particular, card-based design tools have

been used by a number of researchers to bridge the gap

between scholarly knowledge and design practice

[3,8,12,14]. They are hand-sized and typically contain both

text and pictures. Researchers have found design cards to be

effective as knowledge "transfer vehicle s" between theory

and practice [17].

In this paper, we present the design and evaluation of

Tango Cards. The goal of Tango Cards is to make scholarly

knowledge accessible in order to inform the design of

tangible learning games. We designed a set of cards,

conducted expert reviews, and then revised the cards. We

conducted a user study on the revised set to investigate how

designers used the cards, how card characteristics supported

or limited card use, and to better understand in what

situations and for whom the cards were effective. Through a

process of synthesis, reflection, articulation, and abstraction

[9], we present general design considerations that can be

used to create design cards (or other tools) to bridge theory

and practice in other design spaces.

BACKGROUND

Cards as Design Tools

Design researchers have created card-based design tools to

make knowledge produced by design-based research as

well as other domain knowledge accessible to designers.

Hornecker transformed her Tangible Interaction Framework

into Tangible Interaction Cards [12] to make the concepts

better fit into the ideation flow. Lucero and Arrasvuori

created PLEX Cards [14,15] to communicate the Playful

Experiences (PLEX) framework to designers in a form that

is more accessible in design discussions. Bekker and Antle

designed DSD Cards [3] to make information about

children's cognitive, physical, social, and emotional

abilities at different ages accessible to designers of

children's products. Halskov and Dalsgård developed

Inspiration Cards [8] to bring both existing technology and

application (communicated by the Technology Cards) as

well as knowledge about the specific project under design

(communicated by the Domain Cards) closer to designers as

sources of inspiration. They aimed to facilitate designers'

"reflective conversation" between the repertoire and the

situation [18]. IDEO created Methods Cards1 to expose

designers to a variety of methods that they can use to

understand the people they are desi gning for.

In studies of design cards design researchers have found

that cards can help structure design discussions, ensuring a

design space is viewed from different perspectives. Cards

can help speed up the refinement and iteration of ideas

[3,14]. Cards can also help kick off design discussion and

foster focus shift when the discussion becomes

unproductive [8,12]. The information on the cards provides

designers with a common vocabulary to use in design

1 http://www.ideo.com/work/method-cards

discussion [8,14]. Cards can also be used to plan and guide

evaluation [12,14,15].

In particular, the form of cards is important in terms of how

the cards support designers. The small physical form of

cards affords physical manipulation [12]. Cards can serve

as a physical reference during design discussion, facilitating

communication and shared understanding [3,12]. Cards can

be used to bookmark discussion ideas [12,14]. Indeed, as

Hornecker claims, using cards is tangible interaction [12].

Each set of cards serves as a useful design tool for its

specific design space, often enabling the transfer of

knowledge from academe to design practice. However, card

research to date has not been generalized to other design

situations. Nor have researchers always articulated what

design knowledge was embedded in their card artifacts.

Another limit of previous work is that most card sets were

designed to provide inspiration in the early stage of a design

process (e.g. [8,12,14]). Less is known about how to design

cards that can inform designers and can be used at various

stages of design.

Design Space of Tangible Learning Games

The design space that Tango Cards were designed to

support— tangible learning games, actually consists of three

dimensions: tangibles, games, and learning, with the

learning dimension embedded in the first two; that is, the

tangible and game dimensions are learning- focused. It is a

complex design space in terms of its multiple dimensions,

and the complex design knowledge involved with each

dimension.

We translated the knowledge about designing tangibles for

learning from the Tangible Learning Design Framework

(TLD) by Antle and Wise [2]. We extracted learning game

design principles mainly from the learning principles that

Gee derived by analyzing examples of good video games

through cognitive science lenses [7] , and design

considerations that Fisch summarized by drawing upon his

experience designing educational games [6] .

DESIGNING TANGO CARDS

Our design goal for Tango Cards was to make knowledge

about designing tangible learning games, which researchers

have produced through design-based rese arch, accessible to

designers in different activities throughout the design

process. Our first priority wa s to create cards that could be

used to accurately and easily inform designers during their

work. Our se cond priority was to create cards that provided

inspiration.

Considering that tangible learning games are still in their

infancy and mostly exist in laboratories as research

prototypes, the target audience of Tango Cards for now and

the immediate future would mostly be design researchers

and students. However, in the long term (hopefully in the

Figure 1. A Tangible Card, front/text side. Figure 2. A Game Card, back/picture side.

near future) design practitioners in industry will also get

involved in designing tangible learning games. We

designed Tango Cards with both the current and future

target users in mind.

Tango Cards Design

We first did a literature review of research about design

cards including [3,8,12,14]. We then designed our cards

based on this review and our goals. The final design was a

set of 25 cards, approximately 3.8" by 4.4" in size. A PDF

copy can be downloaded from

http://antle.iat.sfu.ca/tangocards

Tango Cards consist of two categories: cards about

tangibles and cards about games. The learning aspect is

embedded in all cards. The cards are colour- coded by

category: blue colour for the 11 tangible learning cards

(Figure 1), and orange colour for the 14 game cards (Figure

2). These colours are very distinct , which enables de signers

to sort the cards by category when needed. For example,

when they are unfamiliar with only one category of

knowledge.

Our review reveal that cards intended for inspirational use

(such as [12,14] ), tend to include only a few words related

to a concept on each card. Our priority for Tango Cards was

to inform designers. Therefore we needed to include more

information about each concept on our cards to avoid

vagueness. Based on the design of IDEO and DSD cards [3]

(which cover more information), we decided to include five

types of information in the cards. The front side (Figure 1)

has five elements: title, design consideration ("Consider"),

rationale ("Why"), textual example ("Example"), and a

label "Tango Cards – Tangible, Learning, Games" in the

order from top to bottom. Titles are short, punchy phrases

capturing the gist of each concept. The design consideration

is framed as a question as inspired by [12]. The rationale

part explains what learning benefits such a design principle

can bring. The text example briefly describes one or a

couple of general ways to apply the design consideration.

The back of a card (Figure 2) contains the card title, a

picture example (with a short description), and a QR code

(unimplemented). Most pictures are photos of tangible

learning systems (games) that demonstrate the design

consideration. The picture examples serve as specific,

concrete examples of applying the concept.

The information architecture of the cards; that is, the spatial

arrangement of different elements as well as the font

hierarchy of the elements on the front side aligns with the

order of importance of different elements to card use. We

wanted to present the title and design considerations, which

communicate the core idea of the concept, at a glance.

Designers can choose to continue reading the other

elements if they need to .

Developing Card Content

When we developed the content, we used the card structure

(i.e., the different card elements as described above) as the

"template " to guide us in extractin g information from the

source literature [3,6,7]. We aimed to make the tit le

tantalizing and memorable as well as descriptive. We

focused on replacing academic jargon with simpler words

to make the information easier to understand and apply. We

thought that this rewriting would be important to both

design practitioners and design researchers and students.

For example, we didn't use the term of image schema used

in the source [2]. Instead, we adapted it to Simple Input

Actions (as the card title). We phrased the corresponding

guideline as "Does the TUI use simple, common movement

patterns, like in-out, up-down, and fast-slow, for input

actions?"

Choosing Picture E xamples

We chose to use pictures of tangible learning systems

(games) for most cards (e.g., FlowBlocks [20], Kurio [19],

Tern [10], Bifocal Models [4]). For previous cards that

focus on inspiring, their picture choice concentrate d on

inspiration and innovation. Researchers of these cards

suggested that picture examples should be familiar to end

users and easy to relate to [12,14]. They argue d that the

examples should not be too specific to constrain the

ideation space; nor should they be too general so that

designers find it difficult to relate to the examples and apply

them to their projects [8,12,14 ]. Because our focus was

informing rather than inspiring, we chose prototypical

examples rather than generic examples. We thought that the

former would better serve as sources of information

because they would provide more specific, concrete

guidance on how the concept could be applied. We

considered this to be especially helpful for the domain of

tangible learning games, which is still new to many

designers. We put the picture example on the back side

because of 1) the space constraint of the front side of the

cards and 2) their main anticipated use as further reference.

One major challenge that we faced when looking for picture

examples was that there are not many tangible learning

games. For some concepts, we could not find a suitable

prototype example. In such cases, we used pictures from

everyday activities/objects, commercial video games, or

diagrams (e.g. Super Mario for the Intrinsic Rewards 2 card

and a diagram for Feedback as Scaffold ).

Pictures of prototypical examples are complex and may be

unfam iliar to designers . They provide more information but

also require context to make sense. However, we did not

think that providing generic examples from everyday life

would be an effective way to communicate the dense

concepts in this domain without additional explanation

either. That was why we intended to include a QR code to

point users to further explanation on the prototype example

and other relevant information.

Expert Review

After our initial design of the cards, we conducted expert

reviews with four researchers. The researchers were three

PhD students and one senior researcher with expertise in

TUI design, game design, or learning science. They studied

or worked in Canada, United States, and Australia.

The goal of our expert review was to identify and fix any

quality issues with the cards and to ask the experts to

provide feedback for our subsequent designer studies. The

experts were provided with an electronic copy of the card

set and our interview questions about a week before the

interview on Skype or in person . The interview consisted of

12 open-ended questions, soliciting feedback on card

content (e.g., whether they were easy to understand,

2 We refer to cards by their title in italics.

whether they were at the right level of detail, any

inaccuracies); image examples (whether they were helpful

in illustrating the guidelines); visual design; their

anticipated card uses; and overall impression about the

cards. The interviews took about 1.5 hours.

Based on experts' feedback, we revised some wording that

they found confusing, inaccurate, or had negative

connotations. For example, the title "Content on the

Plotline" was changed to "Integrating Content and Play".

Two of experts thought some prototypical examples,

especially examples of Bifocal Models 3 , were too complex

and required much context to make sense. We changed

several of these examples accordingly. For example, for the

Intrinsic Rewards card, w e replaced the Bifocal M odel

picture with a picture of Mario turning into Super Mario

after eating a mushroom as a reward . Actually t he experts

suggested using pictures of video games or everyday life in

general instead of prototypical examples . However, we

continued to use tangible learning game pictures for most

cards because our priority was informing and we wanted to

explore the effectiveness of prototyp ical examples for

informing design .

USER STUDY

After we revised the card set, we conducted a user study to

evaluate if the cards were effective in informing the design

of tangible learning games. We also examined how the

cards' features supported or limit ed the usage of the card s.

We used a combination of observation, interview, and

survey methods.

Participants

We conducted 12 sessions with 12 pairs of graduate and

undergraduate design students at Simon Fraser University

(Canada). The 24 participants (seven female and 17 male)

comprised nine graduate students and 15 undergraduate

students. All but one were from the interaction design

program at our university. Seven of them were members of

an undergraduate student game developers' club.

We wanted to recruit participants with experience with

designing for at least one of tangibles, games, or learning

applications. However, we were unable to find enough

participants with tangible or learning experience , which

speaks to the need for Tango Cards! As a result, we decided

to recruit designers with general interaction design

experience and exempted the requirement for learning

design experience. We paired the final 24 participants so

that the experience of each pair covered both tangible

design (or general interaction design) and game design.

Five pairs had tangible experience while the other seven

pairs did not. For convenience of reference and discussion,

3 Bifocal Models comprise a computer model connecting to

a sensor- based physical model. Bifocal Models aim to

support students in develop ing and/or investigating

scientific inquires. See [4] for more information.

the first five pairs will be referred to as the expert group ,

while the other seven pairs will be referred to as novice

group. This compromise in recruitment criteria can be seen

as a limitation of this study. However, in such a new and

complex design space, it would be rare that designers had

adequate knowledge about two or more dimensions of the

design space. Again, this speaks to the need for Tango

Cards.

Tasks: Two Design Cases

We developed two design cases to cover a variation in

design activities and application areas. The first design case

was a redesign of a web-based game that used concepts in

algebra to teach children about healthy eating (e.g. how to

eat balanced meals, nutritional knowledge). The task

involved redesigning from web to tangible form, and

making the game more effective in educating healthy

eating. This case was a later-stage design activity (redesign)

and school subject (algebra). The second design case was

concept development for a tangible learning game that

helped children understand the complexity involved in

building a sustainable environment. This case focused on

early-stage design activity (initial idea development) and a

more general concept (sustainability). Due to time

constraints we did not include a design case of evaluating

an existing design, although the redesign case actually

required participants to evaluate the old design in order to

decide how to approach their new design.

Procedure

We evaluated Tango Cards by observing participants using

the cards in the two design cases , followed by a semi-

structured interview and questionnaire. Before participants

started working on the design cases, they were given a 10-

minute introduction to TUIs. Participants were then

introduced to Tango Cards and were asked to explore the

deck for five minutes. After that, they were provided with

an explanation about the specifics of the first design case

(redesign). They worked on this activity for 40 minutes and

then presented their design concept and rationale for five

minutes. After a five-minute break, participants started

working on the second design case (new concept design),

which was structured in the same way as the first case.

Participants then filled out a questionnaire to rate the value

of the cards in different design activities, how much they

liked different sections of the cards, and the overall design

and value of the cards on a 5-point Likert scale. The session

ended with a semi-structured group interview. Questions

included asking participants about their overall impression

of the cards, what they liked and disliked about the cards,

and whether they would used the cards in future design

activities and how. Sessions lasted between 2.5 and 3 hours.

Data Collection and Analysis

We captured video and audio of the sessions. We also took

handwritten or typed notes during the design activities and

the interviews. The triangulation o f data from observation,

questionnaire, and interviews provides rigor and supports

the validity of our methods .

We analyzed the qualitative observation and interview data

inductively following a standard qualitative coding process

to search for common and atypical but interesting themes.

We also used findings from previous card work (e.g. how

designers used cards and values of cards) as an analytical

lens to search for evidence of themes reported in previous

research. We used descriptive statistics (mean and standard

deviation) to analyze questionnaire data.

RESULTS

Usage Scenario

We first present a comprehensive scenario ex tracted from

session 10 to demonstrate a variety of card uses and how

cards fit within the study's larger design process.

As P19 and P20 started working on design case two, P19

proposed using fruit- shaped control for the tangible

interface as inspired by the ' Coherent Mapping' card (she

soon realized her idea was actually about ' Linking through

Metaphor' ). P19 also generated an idea from the 'Intrinsic

Rewards' card. From there, they moved their ideation to

the white board and generated further ideas without cards.

After developing a few ideas, P20 suggested they return to

the cards on the table to evaluate their ideas using the

cards. They asked themselves whether their ideas

incorporated any rewards after checking the 'Intrinsic

Rewards' card, and said, "Yes." The 'Feedback as

Scaffold' card reminded them they had not developed

feedback mechanics. They went on to develop feedback

ideas, and then returned to cards to check other aspects of

their design.

"Pleasantly Frustrating?" "I think we got it."

"Pause for Reflection?" "For sure!" They both said.

"Thinking with Hand?" "Yes."

"Multiple Representations?" "Yes."

"Dynamic Exploration" "Yes."

When they saw the 'Simplified System' card, after some

initial hesitation and thinking, they realized their game

could have multiple levels with the entry level as a

simplified system. They went on to develop the game

Figure 3 . Working with Tango Cards.

mechanics for advanced levels. Finally, the 'Work

Together' card reminded P19 that they could make a multi-

player game. "They can play together!" claimed P19

excitedly.

As shown in the scenario, participants used cards to kick off

their discussion. Cards enabled them to formatively

evaluate their ideas. Cards guided them in developing

and/or fleshing out ideas, reminding them of perspectives

they would otherwise neglect. The cards also served as

physical reference and common vocabulary to help them

reach shared understanding.

Card Uses

In this section, we describe in detail two new card uses

identified in the user study. We also briefly mention three

other card uses that previous works have identified.

Formative evaluation

Formative evaluation— evaluating design ideas along the

way as they were being developed, is a new use and the

most prominent card use that we found. We observed

participants checking the information on the cards from

time to time to formatively evaluate the concepts that they

had developed. The guidelines on the cards either

confirmed that they were on the right track, or pointed them

to the right direction, or reminded them of something else

missing from their ideas. Sometimes participants went to

the cards for formative evaluation after they had developed

some game ideas without the cards, as described in the

previous usage scenario. Sometimes they reached for cards

right after they generated an idea, possibly with specific

cards on mind as illustrated below.

In design case 1 , P21 and P22 were discussing the game

mechanics of where the (food) items should be placed when

a new level of the game started. The idea they had at that

point was to have the food items stay where they were left

in the last round. However, they were not sure whether this

was good. "You know what, " said P21, " I was just looking

at this one here, " as he picked up the Dynamic Exploration

card and read the design consideration part, ' Can users

adapt their ideas through configuring and reconfiguring the

tangible objects in the space? ' Is there another card about

taking a pause for reflection or something?" He looked for

the Pause for Reflection card. P22 helped him find it. P21

checked the card and commented, "It might be a good idea

to force players to rearrange the starting positions... the

game won't get started until you put everything to where it

is supposed to be… set up the table…like setting up a chess

board..." So they approved their idea, as it was good for

players to explore their idea and reflect on it according to

the Pause for Reflection and Dynamic Exploration cards.

In the mini impromptu interview right after the first design

activity, P21 explicitly mentioned how the Pause for

Reflection card assured them that they were on the right

track.

Indeed, as P24 spontaneously remarked during design case

2 when he looked for cards to confirm his ideas: "This is

when I get to these (cards)… so that all these weird floating

ideas can be grounded in some kind of context…"

Advanced leverage of card form

As expected, we observed many instances where

participants did simple sorting and grouping of cards as a

way to decide which cards were relevant to their design

problem, and to bookmark discussion ideas [3,14,12].

Moreover, we observed more "advanced" arrangem ent and

manipulation of cards in two sessions, as a way to outline

their design rationale or analysis.

In design case 1, P17 and P18 used cards together with

sticky notes to externalize their analysis of the old design

(Figure 4, left). For example, they put a sticky note with

"algebra" on it onto the Linking through Metaphor card,

meaning that they believed the way the old game taught

algebra incorporated the "linking through metaphor" idea.

They put another sticky note with "dancing" on it on the

Intrinsic Reward card because they considered the robot

dancing at the end of each round when kids successfully

balanced the meals of robots an intrinsic reward.

In design case 2, P11 and P12 picked out and grouped the

cards into three piles, with each pile showing the concepts

that they incorporated into one of the three game modes

they designed (Figure 4, right). Each pile of the cards

consisted of tangible blue cards on the left and game orange

cards on the right. They meant to incorporate the game

concepts by applying the tangible mechanisms.

Other uses

We also found the following card uses that previous card

works have reported: to get inspiration when ideation gets

unproductive [3,14,12], to jump off ideation [8 ,12], and

using the content on the cards (mostly the title) as a

common vocabulary and communication shorthand [8,14].

Card Features that Supported Card Use

An analysis of observational, interview , and questionnaire

data revealed that the following card features support ed

Figure 4. Use cards to outline design rationale and analysis.

card uses: clear information hierarchy; short, punchy titles;

design considerations in a question format; and physicality

and mobility of the card form. In this section, we describe

the first two features in detail because they are unique to

Tango Cards and/or are not explicitly identified by previous

card works. The last two features have been described in

previous research (e.g. [3,12,14]). (We have also described

advanced uses of physical forms above.)

Clear information hierarchy

We received very positive feedback about the information

hierarchy design of Tango Cards. P24 said: "like the

hierarchy...the title is big…I recognize it the

best…'Consider' , 'Why', and 'Example' are ordered the

way I want them to be." P19 similarly remarked: "I think it

is the right order. I would read in this order…"

The information hierarchy let participants skim and scan the

information as they liked and needed, supporting

participants with varying levels of domain knowledge and

familiarity with the concepts . Expert group participant P23

stated: "I didn't read any example text, ever. I really like the

title, "Consider" and even the "Why" field… I didn't need

to go that far to have an idea about how to change the

design we had..." He later corrected himself and

commented that for some cards that he did not have a clear

idea about, he would use the examples. Another expert

group participant P11, a senior game researcher, said that

he only needed the title.

Another piece of evidence comes from an interesting

finding from the survey data. In the post- questionnaire,

participants were asked to rate how they liked different

elements of the cards on a 5-point Likert scale , with 5 being

liked most. The mean rating and standard deviation for each

element by both expert group and notice group is shown in

Figure 5. Due to the small sample size and uneven group

size, we were unable to run inferential statistics to see

whether the difference was statistically significant.

However, simple observation of the chart shows that the

expert group participants preferred the title and design

consideration ("Consider") to the other elements, while the

novice group participants rated rationale ("Why") slightly

above other elements. Their mean ratings of other elements

Figure 5. Expert vs. novice group participants' average ratings

on different card elements.

were quite close. One interpretation of this difference

between the two groups is that the information provided by

the title and design consideration was sufficient for expert

group participants with a relatively good understanding of

the domain knowledge to understand and apply the concept.

The novice group participants with less domain knowledge

needed access to more information on the cards to aid their

understanding.

Short, punchy titles

Using short, punchy phrases as titles, reinforced with large

font size and colour, has support ed the use of titles as a

quick visual reference and a communication shorthand

during discussions . According to our observation an d

interview data, the title was the most heavily used card

element. P19 commented that the titles "are well chosen. "

Moreover, title was rated high in post-questionnaire (Figure

5).

Card Features that Limited Card Use

Complex prototype (picture) examples

Picture examples on the back side were much less used than

the text side. Many participants responded with negative

feedback on the picture examples or simply did not use

them. Several participants said some pictures examples of

tangible learning systems (games) were difficult to

understand. For example, P18 said that he found the cards

using the Bifocal Models "intimidating". P11 said

prototypes from the university's research projects (such as

Kurio) were not accessible to general users outside the

school. On the other hand, picture examples with more

universal meanings generally received positive feedback,

such as from well-known commercial games (Super Mario

Bros.), everyday life (game controller), or diagrams.

Such feedback indicates that participants perceive d pictures

more as something to be taken at face value and used

quickly, rather than a visual pointer to further information

that required additional reading to understand. However, we

would argue that the unfavorable feedback could also be

attributed to a mismatch between the designated use of the

picture examples as pointers to specific examples for

further study, and the short duration of the design activities

in which the cards were evaluated. (Several participants

commented explicitly that they would check the prototype

examples if they had more time and during later iterations

with their design ideas.)

"Too much" information on the cards

Three pairs of participants (session 4, 6, and 7) commented

the cards were "a bit wordy" and/or there was too much

information on the card. P11 said: "…diving into

information-gathering mode of each card strongly kicked

me out of the brainstorming in my domain area". He

suggested the information should "go minimum", with only

a phrase such as the title. P13 also commented: " It seems it

is easier to get the message from just looking at the title and

then looking at the picture … we can almost not read the

writing …"

Such comments made sense when participants already

knew the concepts well, such as the game cards for

participants with game design experience. Yet they were

confusing when participants knew little about the concepts,

as was the case for novice group participants with the cards

about tangibles. Further investigation revealed that contrary

to our assumption, unfamiliarity with the tangible concepts

made novice group participants of session 4 and 7 use the

cards less or even ignore them, rather than read "abundant

information" to pick up the concepts. For example, P8 of

session 4 admitted that he used the tangible cards less than

game cards. P8 said he found tangible cards not that helpful

because he was not familiar with them. He remarked: "[saw]

TUI cards like introduction to these ideas; while seeing

game cards like reminder to these ideas…"

Expert group participants P11 and P12 of session 6 (two

PhD students with game research background) did examine

the tangible cards that they knew less more closely (as we

hoped). P12 said: "…never dealt with tangible cards, have

to read them more carefully… because not that familiar

with the concepts…" Despite this, P11 and P12 still disliked

that reading information got in the way of their ideation (as

P11 stated above). From these data, we see a clash between

these participants' preference for not being distracted from

fast-paced ideation on one hand, and their need for the

information on the cards on the other. P11 insightfully

commented: "…the card is just this big. You can only do so

much about them…constrained by space strongly. If your

impulse is to put as much as possible on them, then you are

going in the wrong direction…"

Lack ing in distinguishing visual elements

We observed in many sessions instances where participants

tried to retrieve a card they had discussed before from a pile

of cards, but did not suc ceed. P11 criticized: "(The cards)

didn't support me to differentiate the concepts and

remember them… if I have two cards side by side, I would

have to sit there and read them a bunch of times."

Next, we present how cards made design knowledge about

tangible learning games accessible to designers, who would

benefit most from such a design tool, and when during

design process Tango Cards should be useful.

Accessible: How

We examine the accessibility of the cards from the

following facets: Did designers fin d the knowledge easy to

understand? Did designers find the knowledge useful and

usable? How well did the cards fit into the design process ?

We analyze how the content, presentation , and form of the

cards make cards accessible [3], in terms of both individ ual

use and group use.

A quick reminder

The knowledge presented in a short and concise format by

cards provide s designers with a quick reminder to the

related knowledge and experience on their mind, which in

turn elicits idea generation and refinement. As P12 neatly

stated, the cards provided "a prod to memory ". Many

participants mentioned "reminder" when they commented

on cards' value (session 4, 6, 10, 11). P24 stated: "…even if

I have some background knowledge, it is nice to read one

nicely formed sentence that refreshes your memory…maybe

you don't know as well as you thought… I found it really

useful, even it is a concept I heard before…" In a similar

vein, P23 said: "…a sweet summary of research… things

you've probably read somewhere but you didn't remember

in the moment… accelerate refining…"

A learning-in-use tool (to some extent)

Besides reminding designers of their existing knowledge,

we suggest that cards support some level of concept

learning during the design process for some participants . P8

and P24 made explicit positive remarks about learning from

cards. P8 said although he had played a lot of games, he did

not know the game theories behind and how to apply them.

"I learned a lot (from the cards) in terms of the game that

played in the past and have a way to ground them, reuse

and apply them in future game design." Conversely, P11

argued that the role of the cards as a learning tool was at

odds with their role as a quick reminder because being a

learning tool required more information. Moreover, as

shown earlier, designers' prior knowledge level of the

domain also matters. Novice group participants avoided

cards that they knew too little about.

Common language

The concise information on the cards (especially the titles)

serves as a common language and communication

shorthand. They help participants articulate their ideas and

concerns and reach shared understanding during design

discussions. P8 commented: "I think it is a shorthand for

what you are talking about…becomes easier to throw it

around in development meetings…shared vocabulary in a

meeting…instead of spending 20 minutes explaining what it

means…" This finding is consistent with that found in

[8,14].

Physical anchor, making ideas tangible

Cards afford actions such as pointing, grabbing, grouping,

and sorting. Cards support participants in externalizing

design rationale and analysis, thus making ideas more

concrete and accessible to themselves and to their partners.

P11 thought the cards provided "concrete reference to

abstract ideas". P12 said: " …like being able to visually

glance and move them about … because that is the way my

mind works." This finding echoes with and extends that

found in [3,12,14].

In addition, the information hierarchy of the cards helped

make the knowledge accessible to users of varying levels of

domain knowledge and/or familiarity with different cards.

This has good practic al value because such team diversity

should not be unusual in real-world projects.

Accessible: When

We directly evaluated the cards in two design cases. Both

involved early concept development, although the redesign

case was more narrowly defined since the context and main

idea were already determined. Some sessions also started to

use the cards to iterate their ideas. Our findings confirmed

the utility of the cards for generative use as design

considerations in early concept development and iteration

of ideas. During the design activities we observed

participants' prevalent use of cards for formative evaluation

of design ideas. From this we can infer that the cards may

also be valuable for evaluative use as heuristics in

summative evaluation.

Accessible: Who

Although information architecture has helped support users

of varied level of domain knowledge, the finding that some

novice group participants used less or ignored Tangible

Cards suggests that a certain level of prior knowledge about

tangible learning games is necessary for designers to use

the cards effectively and appreciate their value. T his is also

supported by survey data. In the post-questionnaire,

participants were asked to rate the overall usefulness of the

cards on a 5-point scale, with 5 as most useful. The average

rating by expert group participants was 4.4 (standard

deviation 0.5), while the average rat ing by novice group

participants was 3.4 (standard deviation 0.9) . So less

familiarity with the design space made novice group

participants value the cards less .

DISCUSSION

We now discuss themes that have emerged from our

analysis of the study results as outlined above. We also

extracted and abstracted design considerations for designing

card-based design tools that make academic design

knowledge accessible to designers during their design

process. These design considerations can be generalized to

design tools (card-based or alike ) as knowledge transfer

vehicles for other design spaces . This would especially be

the case for design spaces where dense design knowledge

exists.

Streamlining, not distracting design flow

An analysis and synthesis of study findings shows that

supporting rather than distract from design flow is

important for the effectiveness of design cards. All the card

design features that were proved to be effective all

contributed to making the cards quick to use and/or fit into

the design flow. F or example, the information architecture

design supported scanning and skimming card information.

As another example, the card titles, serving as a common

vocabulary and communication shorthand, helped

accelerate reaching a shared understanding. On the other

hand, card design features th at were found unfavorable

hindered the design flow in some way; for example, "too

much information" could defeat its purpose. This echoes

with Rogers' claim that for theory to best inform design, the

ways of knowledge transfer should focus on the design

process and support the ways that designer work [17].

Design C onsiderations

Based on our study findings and experiences, we suggest

several considerations f or the creation of design cards, with

the dual goal of informing designers and supporting their

design flow.

Include "appropriate" amount of information. As we

observed in the study, there existed a tension between

participants' preference for staying focused on the fast-

paced ideation on one hand, and their need for card

information on the other. To mi tigate the tension, we argue

that a delicate balance should be achieved between

providing adequate information to effectively communicate

the design knowledge and minimize the cards' distraction

of designer's attention from design flow, with the priority

given to the latter. After all, c ard content was " secondary to

[their] thinking" (P13). We suggest considering these

factors when deciding the amount of information to present

on the cards: the knowledge level of target users with the

design space; the desi gn activities that the cards focus on

(e.g., ideation, evaluation, learning and research); and the

work style and preference of target users.

Transforming scholarly design knowledge into a set of

cards is a process of extraction and simplification. As a

result, much context and nuances of the original knowledge

is lost inevitably during this process. This entails a risk of

misinterpretation [3,12] . Inspired by [3], we suggest

providing links to detailed information (e.g., through a QR

code) from the source literature to rectify this.

Implement effective information architecture to support

skimming and scanning the information on the cards and

users of different knowledge levels. In Tango Cards, the

five elements are spatially arranged by their importance,

from "must read" (on the front, top) to "read if necessary"

(on the back, bottom). Visual characteristics are also

applied to reinforce the information architecture; for

example, different font sizes are used to signal the relative

importance of the elements. The section heading s (title,

"Consider", "Why", and "Example") are highlighted using

the colour of the card category (tangible and game). These

features were found to work well in our study.

Apply visual design to make cards highly searchable;

that is, make it easy to differentiate individual cards from

each other. Previous card research has mentioned this

briefly but did not delve into specifics. For example , it was

suggested colour coding could make cards more searchable

[3,12]. Tango Cards are colo ur coded by the two categories

(tangible and game). In addition, the titles in a large font

stand out and work effectively as a visual identifier for the

cards. Participants also suggested that further colour coding,

or using icons or thumbnails of picture examples would

make the cards even more searchable. We could also

consider introducing accessories such as clothes pegs for

designers to mark cards that they consider important.

CONCLUSION

Tango Cards address the need for a design tool to bridge the

gap between theory and practice for the growing design

space of tangible learning games. Based on our study

findings and experience, we present general considerations

for the design of cards for informing design practice in any

complex domain space. We hope this work will encourage

further conversations on how to design tools , especially

cards to make scholar design knowledge accessible to

designers. As future work, we would like to revise the cards

based on the findings and feedback from the user study, and

then to evaluate the cards in industry-based projects, which

have longer timespan s and real-life constraints.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by SSHRC and GRAND NCE

funding. We thank our many colleagues and participants for

their contribution (special thanks to Allen Bevans). We

thank DIS and past reviewers for their invaluable

comments.

REFERENCES

1. Antle, A.N., Droumeva, M., and Ha, D. Hands on

what?: Comparing children's mouse-based and tangible-

based interaction. In Proc . IDC 2009, ACM (2009), 80–

88.

2. Antle, A.N. and Wise, A.F. Getting down to details:

Using theories of cognition and learning to inform

tangible user interface design. Interacting with

Computers 25, 1 (2013), 1–20.

3. Bekker, T. and Antle, A.N. Developmentally situated

design (DSD): M aking theoretical knowledge accessible

to designers of children's technology. In Proc. CHI

2011, ACM (2011), 2531– 2540.

4. Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., Greene, D., and Salehi, S.

Bifocal modeling: Mixing real and virtual labs for

advanced science learning. In Proc. IDC 2012 , ACM

(2012), 296–299.

5. De Castell, S. and Jenson, J. Digital games for

education: When meanings play. Intermédialités:

Histoire et théorie des arts, des lettres et des techniques,

9 (2007), 113.

6. Fisch, S.M. Making educational computer games

"educational." In Proc. IDC 2005, ACM (2005), 56 –61.

7. Gee, J.P. Good Video Games + Good Learning:

Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning and

Literacy. Peter Lang Pub Inc, 2007.

8. Halskov, K. and Dalsgård, P. Inspiration card

workshops. In Proc. DIS 2006 , ACM (2 006), 2– 11.

9. H öök, K. and Löwgren, J. Strong concepts:

Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design

research. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human

Interaction 19, 3 (2012), 23:1–23:18.

10. Horn, M.S., Crouser, R.J., and Bers, M.U. Tangible

interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach.

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, 4 (2012), 379–

389.

11. Hornecker, E. A Design theme for tangible interaction:

Embodied facilitation. In Proc. ECSCW 2005. Springer

Netherlands, 2005, 23–43.

12. Hornecker, E. Creative idea exploration within the

structure of a guiding framework: The card

brainstorming game. In Proc. TEI 2010, ACM (2010),

101– 108.

13. Löwgren, J. Annotated portfolios and other forms of

intermediate-level knowledge. Interactions 20, 1 (2013),

30–34.

14. Lucero, A. and Arrasvuori, J. PLEX Cards: A source of

inspiration when designing for playfulness. In Proc. Fun

and Games 2010, ACM (2010), 28– 37.

15. Lucero, A., Holopainen, J., Ollila, E., Suomela, R., and

Karapanos, E. The Playful E xperiences (PLEX)

Framework as a guide for expert evaluation. In Proc.

DPPI 2013, ACM (2013), 221– 230.

16. Manches, A. and O'Malley, C. Tangibles for learning: A

representational analysis of physical manipulation.

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, 4 (2012), 405–

419.

17. Rogers, Y. New theoretical approaches for human-

computer interaction. Annual Review of Information

Science and Technology 38, 1 (2004), 87–143.

18. Schön, D.A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner:

Toward a N ew Design for Teaching and Learning in the

Professions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1987.

19. Wakkary, R., Hatala, M., Muise, K., et al. Kurio: A

museum guide for families. In Proc. TEI 2009 , ACM

(2009), 215–222.

20. Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., and Resnick, M. Extending

tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori -

inspired manipulatives. In Proc. CHI 2005 , ACM

(2005), 859–868.

... Scholars in various fields of design research identified different characteristics of cards that make them effective as artefacts to be used within design practice [34,35,36]. As such they foster combinatorial creativity, serve as tangible containers for ideas and enable collaboration [37] and can therefore be used as conversation starters and orienting devices in the design process and support structuring design interventions [38,39]. ...

... As such they foster combinatorial creativity, serve as tangible containers for ideas and enable collaboration [37] and can therefore be used as conversation starters and orienting devices in the design process and support structuring design interventions [38,39]. Both as a physical artefact as well as digital objects in simulations, cards help in making ideas and arguments tangible, which supports the design process in moderating shared understanding and common language [34,35,38]. Beyond the aforementioned Carpe Diem, Viewpoints and ABC Learning Design method, also other learning co-design interventions make use of cards to devise pedagogical strategies with multiple participants. ...

... Beyond the aforementioned Carpe Diem, Viewpoints and ABC Learning Design method, also other learning co-design interventions make use of cards to devise pedagogical strategies with multiple participants. Examples include LEAGUE ideation toolkit, which is a card-based tool conceived for the collaborative ideation and design of Game-Based Learning experiences [40]; the Learning Design Cards [41] that helps teams of educators visualize and structure actual learning interventions with a specific emphasis on technology mediated educational environments; the Tango cards, specifically crafted for designing educational tangible games [34]. ...

This paper takes the Bloom's Taxonomy, more specifically the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, as a baseline for learning objective and curriculum design adopted by generations of teachers and instructors in their practice. On the backdrop of recent findings and persistent principles of learning design, the authors employ narrative theory and its notion of linguistic statements to propose a collaborative approach to curriculum design using an interactive and card-based method. The conceptual notions of the Learning Objective Design Deck are illustrated and important arguments for the use of a card deck in context of learning objective design workshops are presented. The methodical tool aimed at educators and instructional designers is comprised of a canvas and a card deck that can be used in both physical, in form of an actual card deck, and digital formats, e.g. on collaborative synchronous digital whiteboard solutions. The authors will discuss the current state of their methodological design, perspectives on formalisation for implementation in software and present initial results form a workshop conducted with domain experts to reflect on areas for improvement and further research. The paper concludes with a contextualisation of the method in relation to other learning design tools in development by the authors that integrate the narratively driven learning experience design approach to conceptualise a framework and modelling language for learning experience design that can be extended to a software-based approach for learning activity or even learning unit design.

... Fifth, although we explored how our EssCards can be applied in a design context, we believe that our results can also be used for other purposes to reach a broader HCI audience. For example, researchers could explore the use of the EssCards as an evaluation tool to engage with various categories of customers or as a teaching aid to share insights about multisensory and crossmodal association [13,17,44]. To facilitate these and other future explorations, including the study of further scent-feature associations, we have included a blank template of our EssCards in the Supplementary Materialsection S.3. ...

It has long been known that our sense of smell is a powerful one that affects emotions and behaviors. Recently, interest in the sense of smell has been growing exponentially in HCI. However, the potential of smell to inspire design is still underexplored. In this paper, we first investigated crossmodal correspondences between scents and selected features relevant for design (clustered in sensory, bodily, and qualitative features). Then, we created a set of cards (EssCards) to visually summarize the key findings to inspire designers. We carried out two preliminary design exploration sessions using the EssCards. Based on our findings, we discuss how to inspire and challenge design opportunities around the sense of smell and reflect upon applications for smell as inspirational material for designing future interactions and experiences.

... Güldenpfennig [23] created a co-design toolkit to provide senior users with early tangible experiences of their future systems and to iteratively convert them into the final implementations. Tango cards [10] then supports the design of tangible learning games. Overall, to our knowledge, there is a lack of work focusing on people with ID. ...

This paper presents a co-design toolkit that aims to involve people with Intellectual Disability (ID) in the ideation of smart outdoor experiences. We conducted a series of workshops with young adults with ID and special-education professionals of a social-care center, to identify the physical and digital experience that could favour reflection and engagement of the addressed users, and empower them in solving daily-life challenges. Multiple refinements of iterative prototypes led to the design of an interactive toolkit, COBO, that integrates inspirational cards, interactive smart objects and multimedia contents to guide users during the conception of novel ideas. This paper illustrates the main insights of the conducted workshops and the design of COBO. It also reports on a preliminary evaluation we conducted to validate some design choices for the integration of physical and digital components within COBO.

Despite a wealth of behavior change theories and techniques available, designers often struggle to apply theory in the design of behavior change technologies. We present the Behavior Change Design (BCD) cards, a design support tool that makes behavioral science theory accessible to interaction designers during design meetings. Grounded on two theoretical frameworks of behavior change, the BCD cards attempt to map 34 behavior change techniques to five stages of behavior change, thus assisting designers in selecting appropriate techniques for given behavioral objectives. We present the design of the BCD cards along with the results of two formative and one summative study that aimed at informing the design of the cards and assessing their impact on the design process.

Previous design cases and examples are important resources in design, most famously conceptualized by Donald Schön as the designer's repertoire. We propose a way of approaching and gathering such examples, and introduce a tool for constructing and analyzing the design spaces these collections form. Each example is deconstructed in terms of aspects of concern and options for how these aspects can be implemented. The example is then represented within a design space schema comprising aspect-option sets. This makes it possible to conceptualize a design space of aspect-option sets reflecting the focal collection, and to position individual examples within that design space. We demonstrate our approach through an analysis of 54 media architecture installations listed on the Media Architecture Biennale award nomination lists from 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. We discuss how this approach compares to similar approaches, and detail the knowledge building process that it enables, which includes two main elements: 1) developing a language to describe the examples in terms of the aspect-option sets; and 2) exploring the design space through filtering the design space.

• Jianfeng Wu
• Chuchu Jin
• Lekai Zhang
• Xuan Dong

Emotionally sustainable design helps users to develop an emotional attachment to a product and motivates them to continue using it, thus extending the product lifecycle, minimizing the need for new products and achieving product sustainability. However, the existing relevant design principles are still very scattered, and they could not effectively guide the emotionally sustainable design practice in a systematic way. We proposed an emotionally sustainable design (ESD) toolbox for product design based on the literature review and expert argumentation. The toolbox consists of seven themes and 20 principles under the three levels of emotional design. The usability of the ESD toolbox was then validated through design practice for the teapot product. The result shows that the ESD toolbox improved the efficiency of the sustainable design process and was helpful to the product's sustainability.

Game-based learning (GBL) has proliferated rapidly in recent years, with both industry and academic research communities calling for collaborative work practices in the educational game design process that need to address all the key GBL aspects and create a shared understanding among team members. Design cards have the potential to improve idea generation and communication between stakeholders. However, potential scaffolding for completeness (focusing on all key GBL dimensions) and collaboration (working together to produce something) in learning game design are not explored. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate how this design approach can scaffold for collaboration and completeness in the early phase of the learning game design process using a card-based GBL ideation toolkit in design workshops. Seven teams were analyzed using design artifacts and video recordings of the workshop session. The results are encouraging in terms of the applicability of ideation cards in the GBL design process to scaffold completeness and collaboration.

In this paper, we describe a set of user studies within the Bifocal Modeling (BM) framework. BM juxtaposes physical and computer models using sensor-based and computer modeling technologies, highlighting the discrepancies between ideal and real systems. When creating bifocal models, students build both a physical model with sensors of a given scientific phenomenon, and a computer model of the same phenomenon, connecting the two in real time with a special hardware interface. In this paper, we describe four formats for using BM in the classroom, as well as its affordances and characteristics.

The Playful Experiences (PLEX) framework is a categorization of playful experiences based on previous theoretical work on pleasurable experiences, game experiences, emotions, elements of play, and reasons why people play. While the framework has been successfully employed in design-related activities, its potential as an evaluation tool has not yet been studied. In this paper, we apply the PLEX framework in the evaluation of two game prototypes that explored novel physical interactions between mobile devices using Near-Field Communication, by means of three separate studies. Our results suggest that the PLEX framework provides anchor points for evaluators to reflect during heuristic evaluations. More broadly, the framework categories can be used as a checklist to assess different attributes of playfulness of a product or service.

Design-oriented research practices create opportunities for constructing knowledge that is more abstracted than particular instances, without aspiring to be at the scope of generalized theories. We propose an intermediate design knowledge form that we name strong concepts that has the following properties: is generative and carries a core design idea, cutting across particular use situations and even application domains; concerned with interactive behavior, not static appearance; is a design element and a part of an artifact and, at the same time, speaks of a use practice and behavior over time; and finally, resides on an abstraction level above particular instances. We present two strong concepts—social navigation and seamfulness—and discuss how they fulfil criteria we might have on knowledge, such as being contestable, defensible, and substantive. Our aim is to foster an academic culture of discursive knowledge construction of intermediate-level knowledge and of how it can be produced and assessed in design-oriented HCI research.

• Jonas Löwgren

Gaver and John Bowers have addressed the role of design practice in academic research in an article. They have proposed the idea of annotated portfolios as a way to communicate design research. This is done to provide an alternative to accounts that suggest for design to become productive as research, engaging in some sort of theory formation. The notion of annotated portfolios entails selecting a collection of designs, representing them in an appropriate medium, and combining the design re-presentations with brief textual annotations. Gaver and Bowers characterize their proposal as a methodology for communicating design research, and a methodology that is familiar to designers as well as artists. The idea of annotated portfolios eliminates a growing sense of discomfort with the way in which design practice is increasingly misappropriated by scientific notions of academic research.

Many researchers have suggested that tangible user interfaces (TUIs) have potential for supporting learning. However, the theories used to explain possible effects are often invoked at a very broad level without explication of specific mechanisms by which the affordances of TUIs may be important for learning processes. Equally problematic, we lack theoretically grounded guidance for TUI designers as to what design choices might have significant impacts on learning and how to make informed choices in this regard. In this paper, we build on previous efforts to address the need for a structure to think about TUI design for learning by constructing the Tangible Learning Design Framework. We first compile a taxonomy of five elements for thinking about the relationships between TUI features, interactions and learning.We then briefly review cognitive, constructivist, embodied, distributed and social perspectives on cognition and learning and match specific theories to the key elements in the taxonomy to determine guidelines for design. In each case, we provide examples from previous work to explicate our guidelines; where empirical work is lacking, we suggest avenues for further research. Together, the taxonomy and guidelines constitute the Tangible Learning Design Framework. The framework advances thinking in the area by highlighting decisions in TUI design important for learning, providing initial guidance for thinking about these decisions through the lenses of theories of cognition and learning, and generating a blueprint for research on testable mechanisms of action by which TUI design can affect learning.

There is a wealth of theoretical knowledge about the developmental abilities and skills of children. However, this knowledge is not readily accessible to designers of interactive products. In this paper, we present the requirements, design and evaluation of developmentally situated design (DSD) cards. DSD cards are a design tool that makes age specific information about children's developing cognitive, physical, social, and emotional abilities readily accessible for designers. Initial requirements were elicited through interviews with design practitioners and students. The cards were evaluated through a design-in-use study in which design students used the cards to address three different design problems. Our analysis of observational notes and post-design interviews revealed how the cards' characteristics enabled different kinds of uses including framing, orienting, inspiring, informing, integrating and constraining. We conclude with a discussion of possible refinements and an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of our approach.

Playfulness can be observed in all areas of human activity. It is an attitude of making activities more enjoyable. Designing for playfulness involves creating objects that elicit a playful approach and provide enjoyable experiences. In this paper we introduce the design and evaluation of the PLEX Cards and its two related idea generation techniques. The cards were created to communicate the 22 categories of a Playful Experiences framework to designers and other stakeholders who wish to design for playfulness. We have evaluated the practical use of the cards by applying them in three design cases. The results show that the PLEX Cards are a valuable source of inspiration when designing for playfulness and the techniques help create a large amount of ideas in a short time.

• Andrew ManchesClaire O'Malley
• Claire O'Malley

Manipulatives—physical learning materials such as cubes or tiles—are prevalent in educational settings across cultures and have generated substantial research into how actions with physical objects may support children's learning. The ability to integrate digital technology into physical objects—so-called 'digital manipulatives'—has generated excitement over the potential to create new educational materials. However, without a clear understanding of how actions with physical materials lead to learning, it is difficult to evaluate or inform designs in this area. This paper is intended to contribute to the development of effective tangible technologies for children's learning by summarising key debates about the representational advantages of manipulatives under two key headings: offloading cognition—where manipulatives may help children by freeing up valuable cognitive resources during problem solving, and conceptual metaphors—where perceptual information or actions with objects have a structural correspondence with more symbolic concepts. The review also indicates possible limitations of physical objects—most importantly that their symbolic significance is only granted by the context in which they are used. These arguments are then discussed in light of tangible designs drawing upon the authors' current research into tangibles and young children's understanding of number.

This paper documents the development of an educationally focused web-based game, Contagion, detailing how such a practical development project has led us to re-theorize questions about what is "educational," and how and in what ways that relates to the ludic. With reference to and within the framework of design-based research, we detail here the challenges we encountered designing this "alternative" game, and how we came to see content, not simply as "what the game is about" but as essentially tied to and enacted through all aspects of the game. We argue that content, that is educationally valuable knowledge, is infused through all relational aspects of the game as the player's activities accomplishments: character selection, art, narrative, programming, goals, game structures and play. Each of these aspects and challenges of game-design are explored in an effort to show how knowledge is constructed through these inter-related elements, and to further understand how and why that might matter to future game development projects.

Posted by: briefcase456.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269191784_Tango_cards