by: Taylor, Amit, and myself

Otar is fun. Otar likes to tell stories. Otar likes to share.

Plug and Squeeze. Otar speaks through your computer’s USB port to a desktop widget that communicates with Facebook. With every squeeze, Otar’s stories come to life. To build stories of your own, you can pick images from Otar’s stories, caption them and send them to your friends.

A simple, easy to use system, Otar uses the body to drive communication through storytelling. Regardless of age, language, culture and literacy level, you can play with Otar.

Please read more on Taylor’s blog.

To use Otar, you must download and run the desktop widget.

Step 1 – Log in to Otar and let the squeezing begin.

Step 2 – Squeeze Otar to find the right image.

Step 3 – Pick a friend, caption your image, and then have Otar send it off.

Hopefully, your friend will already have the Otar Facebook application installed. If not, she may add it with a few simple clicks. Then, she will be able to review the Otar conversation you two have started.

More documentation

A more thorough description of our process can be found here.

For those trying to implement serial communication in Java through Eclipse, the archive below should be of great use. Make sure to add the native binaries to your library folder so that everything runs smoothly. The SerialInterface class provides a clean way to get to everything working. Serial Files

]]> http://www.blog.alexabreu.com/2007/12/13/i-am-otar-by-taylor-amit-and-myself/feed/ 0 http://www.blog.alexabreu.com/2007/12/13/currently-on-webkinzcom/ http://www.blog.alexabreu.com/2007/12/13/currently-on-webkinzcom/#comments Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:05:38 +0000 alex.abreu http://www.itp.alexabreu.com/?p=41 The NYT just published an article about the latest scheme from the Webkinz team on how to capitalize on virtual play time. Much like, Club Penguin, Webkinz is an online community for children filled to the brim with all sorts of online games and virtual world goodies. Unlike most other social networks, Webkinz requires users to buy a plush doll in order to gain access to the site. Unfortunately, the toy is nothing more than a way to bundle in an access code to the site, providing no added value in the form of play time away from the virtual world. Yet, forcing parents to buy these expensive ($15 and up) dolls wasn’t quite enough for the company, and they are now supplementing revenues by forcing children to watch ads on the site after logging in. They have also tied in the ad content into the online world, allowing children to purchase ad-related accessories for their characters. When I first heard about Webkinz earlier this semester, I thought they were probably on to something with their attempt to combine virtual and physical play time. The NYT article highlights just how unoriginal their idea has now become. Rather than focusing on the potential for interplay between physical objects and online play, the Webkinz team has reverted back to the most primitive form of online marketing; proving that they are not a toy company and much more like the typical ‘have no new ideas on how to make money on the internet’ spam site.

Lisa Guernsey’s novel highlights current research in the arena of young children’s television viewing. Much of the research is interesting, and can provide a parent with some insight into how to approach television with their child. Lisa emphasizes that moderation is the most important factor when children are allowed to spend time in front of the television, and that by no means is it a replacement for good parenting.

Unfortunately, Lisa interprets much of the research as justification to place a child in front of the television occasionally as a way to find respite from the rigors of child rearing. She forgets to answer the question ‘what is the benefit of placing a child in front of the television at all?’ Recounting research that indicates moderate viewing of age appropriate television might not be harmful to a child does little to get to the real issue–is television worth a child’s time?

Guernsey states that the wrong kinds of television (age inappropriate, background noise heavy, scary, violent, etc.) definitely do interrupt children’s natural play patterns. That being the case, why take the chance at all? Most often the studies Guernsey recounts indicate that interaction and play time are the most important things to early child development. Why risk affecting the pillars of child development? Television is not an obviously productive medium. Why introduce a mediocre tool into a child’s life at all. I believe Guernsey’s answers to these questions to be a form of justification for continuing to let her daughters watch television. In the process she has indicated that some television might not be so bad for other people’s kids. Is ‘not so bad’ really good enough?

I found the research indicating that children’s abilities with language are severely derailed by background television noise horribly alarming. Looking back on my sister’s early development, I can see how this had terrible consequences for her. She watched way too much television as a child–mainly because my parents were much busier when she came around. As a toddler she had the hardest time with language and has always had a slight difficulty hearing the way she should be able to. My parents let her regulate her own television viewing time, and that was probably not to her advantage. Guernsey’s reporting of this study is quite meaningful for society, but if this research proves to be true over time, why run the risk of doing harm to a child by placing them in front of a television at all? Guernsey does not spend enough time on this point, and I think a book with the best interests of a child in mind would do more to explore this very concept.

Television, more than anything else, is a passive medium. It provides for peaks and dips in children’s attention and cannot be compared to uninterrupted play time. In my opinion, the smartest thing to do is keep your kids far away from television. There are definitely no studies in existence which indicate doing so will have a negative consequence on their development. The reverse is definitely false.

Sensorimotor (ages 0 – 2 1/2) children become absorbed with every new object they discover. They experience these objects through touch often gumming or chewing to better understand them. Their view of the world is very focused and narrow–often compared to seeing the world in the cone of a flashlight’s projection.

Pre-operational children (ages 2 1/2 – 7) begin to understand the way the objects they come in contact with fit within the world. They can connect linear memories with one another to establish rules for play. Through play they identify new relationships, but tend to be quite ego-centric when interacting with other people. Pre-operational children have a difficult time understanding the more abstract properties of objects such as mass and volume.

The video below shows these two stages of learning. Watch the young tactile children as they experience the world through touch. Watch them become instantly absorbed with whatever they find along the way. The second half of the video shows slightly older children engaging in more complicated forms of play. They play pretend, communicate freely with other children, understand toys as tools and live within their own spotlights.

The video below shows the inability of pre-operational children to distinguish size from the more qualitative properties of an object. They can be easily fooled by simply modifying the way a problem is presented.

Concrete-operational (ages 7 – 12) children have a greater ability to think abstractly. They can make connections between many memories in a non-linear way. They continue to form more complex relationships with the outside world. To highlight the differences between the pre-operational and concrete-operational I’ve juxtaposed two videos of different aged children playing guitar. The important thing to note is not the skill level but the equal sense of immersion and enjoyment despite the different understandings of the tool in hand.

The video below shows that concrete operational children have a a much greater ability to follow rules of deduction.

Finally, formal-operational children (ages 12 and up) have a firm grasp of abstract logic and begin to test their theories out in the world. They push the boundaries of their environments to reaffirm their theories. They are interested in understanding their identity in the world. Simply put, they are teenagers figuring out how they fit into the world. The video below highlights formal-operational children discussing an abstract theory and how it relates to their own existence within the world.

Of course!

How could we explore manifestations of these concepts without of course discussing what makes them work. We discussed Massive Change and Cradle to Cradle, and how this literature, more than ever, applies to our work and our world. As part of our weekly assignment we had to create a project focused on energy as well as keep a log of our waste output during the week. Prior to the class assignment my good friend and classmate, Taylor, and I built upon our idea of connecting physical and virtual spaces through a new form of person-centric advertising. We’d spent some time thinking about how ‘broadcast’ style advertising can often times deter interest in a product. We also discussed the limitations of advertising and why it fails so miserably when adapted to the web. After class, and several discussions later, Taylor and I came to the conclusion that advertising is a physical construct no longer necessary with the advent of a much more visibly interconnected space like the web. Through advertising, advertisers seek to create connections with potential consumers. In the process, they spend considerable amounts of money, target people who could/will never be interested in their product, and waste great amounts of resources to spread their message. Luckily for us, the process is: 1) Energy Intensive 2) Wasteful. Just what we were looking for.

Why is advertising so wasteful? Simply, put advertising is an inefficient means of establishing a connection. But, how does this relate to energy. Well, Taylor and I had to explain that part as well. This PDF file explains our analysis of advertising as a highly energy consumptive process. To the best of our ability we attempted to remain true to our previous definitions of space and connection. These axioms were essential to our understanding of waste. We emphasize that advertising in the physical world is limited by the inability to reach pathways. On the web, these pathways are clearly marked, and users explore them freely. We relate this dichotomy to learning theory, specifically behaviorism and social constructionism. Physical world advertising is an attempt by advertisers to mold consumers while the web provides for a much more user-centric experience. The web provides the channels for the consumer to find out about anything he/she desires without an advertiser directing when and how.

‘Social constructivism argues that the most optimal learning environment is one where a dynamic interaction between instructors, learners and tasks provides an opportunity for learners to create their own truth due to the interaction with others. Social constructivism thus emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what is happening in society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding (Derry 1999; McMahon 1997). ‘  Wikipedia

Rather than keeping track of our own personal waste for the week, Taylor and I decided to collect the waste we were forced to take on by advertisers in NYC. We obtained all sorts of junk including: t-shirts, flyers, postcards, and booklets. Each piece of media was handed to us by a person on the street trying attempting to forge some connection with us in order to push their product. We spent over half an hour talking to a group of Nokia advertisers in Washington Square Park about the best methods to ensnare an audience. The most shocking revelation came when one of the advertisers mentioned how much propaganda (warehouses full) is kept in storage for this type of advertising. More than a few dollars, man-hours, and resources are being wasted to push product. Unfortunately the majority of this type of advertising ends up in trash bins around the world.

The message I hope to take with me from the presentation is the importance of remaining true to one’s ‘childhood’ dreams and aspirations. These dreams most likely come together during our earlier developmental stages and formative years. Randy’s simple message tends to imply that a certain truth is blurred or lost as we humans progress through Piaget’s stages of development. If so, it is essential to establish a line of communication between our current and former understanding. As children add on layers of understanding and cognition how can one encourage a more recursive method for processing information (i.e. sensorimotor skills must not be abandoned in favor of post-operational rational)? Can software encourage such a relationship?

I found myself most attracted to the Social Constructivism theory that children accumulate and stack knowledge, but that this knowledge is understood independently. The teacher acts as the carrot in front of the horse enouraging the student to seek out that extra bit of knowledge and then to incorporate into his/her thought process. My favorite teachers and professors have been those could inspire me to seek, absorb, and then adopt new sources of knowledge.

I ‘m looking forward to incorporating the guidelines for development of child-related media into group project discussions. Although I agree a piece of software should inspire and engage children, I find the idea of designing software which plays to children’s wants instead of their needs somewhat risky. Creating a online game which enthralls a child to negative extremes seems to limit the amount of time he/she can spend playing in the backyard making forts and mud pies. In our reading, there was no mention of games which institute limits to teach children that their desires cannot manifest themselves all the time. I also would like to find out about software and software research which encourages children to interact with the physical world in addition to the virtual one.

I was quite interested in the idea behind the U.B. Fun Keys which incorporates traditional plastic/vinyl toys, collecting, and online game playing. I was saddened to to see that your game play was limited by having only character key instead of enhanced by adding more character keys. The alien-like key and world designs might not have been the best choice, but I believe the concept could be quite successful with a different twist.