Keitai

Preface: I watched three great presentations about kids over the past few weeks. The first at Fjord’s MobileCamp London; was mobile focused. The second, at Brandlicensing Expo 2007 was about preschoolers and their relationships with branded/licensed toys. The third was Marc Presky’s plenary presentation at Handheld Learning 2007 on kids, technology and learning.

All three presentations were—in some way—about play and discussed (directly or otherwise) many of the reasons technology is so compelling to children. The similarities and contrasts in these presentations; despite their differing audiences and subject matter were also interesting.

Talk 1: Dr. Norman Lewis (ex Director of Technology Research, Orange UK—now at Wireless Grids) on “Digital Kids and Disruption”.

Paraphrased from my lengthy notes…

An important aspect in the process of the internationalization of digital technology into childhood is tension between the agenda of adults and those of young people.

Kids spend more time in the presence of adults than ever before, as a result, there is no space ‘for kids. Parents used to say to kids “get out of the house, play, come back at dinner”, now kids are driven around, attend supervised sports, after school classes, ’safe’ activities etc. This new intergenerational dynamic is the key to understanding why digital technology is so attractive to young people

Kids see technology as entertainment, diversion, relief from boredom—parents want it to be educational.

Parents see technology as a way of minimizing risk (of the outside world)—kids see it as freedom from constant supervision. The changing character of childhood particularly the shift from outdoor play to indoor play mean children want digital apps that are under their control, help them pass time, provide entertainment, connect with peers and evade supervision.

It’s not the tech/gadgets that attract the kids it’s the desire to break out of that space and experiment.

Therefore if not sensitive to this motivation—products will get it wrong

Self-expression becomes a key element of how they interact with the world, a mechanism to develop identity and reputation or develop a peer culture. Studies show that kids may have 300 ‘friends’ on MySpace, Bebo etc. but often only have 6 IM friends. These friends often live on same street, go to the same school—are ‘real’ friends. The most important thing about blogging (mySpace, Bebo etc.)—for kids—is peer acknowledgement (creativity and sharing). Teenage girl are the biggest blogging demographic by far.

For kids, moderating their social status depends on their ability to personalize these new technologies within a peer context.

Old approach to disseminating personal ‘content’: Top down, information is broadcast to friends and community. New approach: you are in the middle (of a big organic circle) surrounded by your ‘people’, devices, content—all this creates a personal, organically shaped and overlapping network that defines who you are. You determine what content, what means of communication etc—you decide. The communication of content becomes less significant than the network of communication

When exchanging pictures, talking about a show it’s not the content that’s important, it’s the creation of a network/relationship using the content. Service providers shouldn’t be thinking “how can I make a deal with ‘x’ brand owner to put on this content on my network” instead “how can I enable the audience to consume this content amongst friends which will in turn drive usage of my network”.

Myth: children are naturally good with tech. Why is this untrue? Maybe they simply have a less structured approach to discovery, less baggage. This tech is there, all around them so why not use it, try it, play—it becomes part of the means through which they exist in the world, through which they appropriate and internalize the world. No distinction between tech and ‘non-tech’—it’s just life.

What will they need when they grow up? Will they put up with the bad UIs? Will they push the boundaries [think out of the box…naturally because it's a different box that they conceptualize]. We do them a disservice when we flatter them (call them ‘digital natives’)—we should use this opportunity to tempt them to investigate the technology, by flattering them we are letting them (and us, and everyone) off the hook from innovating.

Went on to talk about an ambitious project while he was at Orange to port Scratch to mobile devices as an authoring environment. Would allow kids to make content, share it, adapt what their friends made, and share it again. If we enable this, the younger generation would/could do exciting stuff.

How can you apply all the above insights to the design of products for mobile devices?