From the Abstract episode we watched during the class:

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

• Cas Holman explains that designing for “play” is better than just designing for “toys” because toys are often associated a specific way to play or use it. There are often rules or instructions that could dictate how a person should be using it (feels restricting). But to play means an open ended and exploratory experience. Play is for any age and could be for many reasons besides having fun. I totally agree with Cas because I have noticed that as I grew older I am becoming more and more attached to “toys” or the idea of “toys”. After watching the episode I might even say I’ve yearning for “play”. Maybe because in the process of growing up I have lost that spark of ideas or missing that feeling of test and trial, challenges, etc. Maybe to a lot of people toys can mean for kids (which is not true) but play doesn’t involve age. It is interesting because when it comes to games (ex. board games) I tend to not enjoy it as much as if I just had a doll that I could do anything I wanted with it. I feel like my personal experience really resonates with Holman’s idea as I don’t like being told what to follow. I understand that I could lose the game, which is not necessarily a bad thing but it doesn’t change my thought that it lowkey diminishes my desire to continue. When I play with something with no instructions I can come up with fabulous stories, there is no right or wrong.

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

• Last week I mentioned that toys and play make stories come to life, create learning experiences, and teaches us that there isn’t just one way to look at something (which is all in some way related to Cas’s ideas). I mentioned in class this thought that I would like to add to my previous definition. That is being: in the episode Cas constantly mentions the phrase “easy is boring” because the only way play can produce new juicy creative intentions is if it is hard to figure out, or more like it can take a long time to play. Challenges are crucial to becoming better even in real life so yes while toys and play are suppose to be a fun experience it also needs to be hard enough to be constantly engaging. Young kids or adults need to be taken seriously so no it cannot be easy.

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 from this point of view. Are there any skills that this toy allowed you to learn when you played with it?

• The concept of “play value” as I understand from different resources is that there is a measurable “quality” or “usefulness” in terms of facilitating play and learning. Analyzing my favorite toy; a doll from this point of view, I feel like I learned a lot. Not necessarily just with the doll but FOR the doll. Of course I would play with the hairstyles and outfits (I guess I learned a lot about fashion) but I used to watch a lot of youtube videos or even tried things out myself to make my own furniture and/or clothing for the doll using any scrap materials I had at home (card stock paper, cardboard, old clothing, etc.) That was definitely the start of my interest in crafting and diy. I remember my favorite stores were Michael's or Joann’s because they always had the supplies I needed.