Raise your hand if you have ever seen an app in the app market and thought, "What the heck is this!?" or "How can they put such a stupid game on the app market?" Now put your hands down because, frankly, you might look a bit silly right now. But I'm sure that many of you agree with me when I say that the app availability, especially for kids, ranges to the incredibly high quality to the embarrassingly quality-less. One could argue that the same sort of spectrum exists for Internet games. However, most online gaming for kids is free - so if you do run into a terrible game, it's no harm no foul. Additionally, the access to online games tends to be frictionless. In the app world, however, many of these low-quality apps still sell themselves for $0.99 or at least bombard their user with ads. Additionally, the process of having to download and uninstall these games forces the user to become far more invested in a bad gaming experience than if they were just browsing the web.
So often do we see a terrible game, grumble at ourselves for accessing it, and walk away. But more often, we should really consider what made that game so bad. What was it that made us hurumph in despair over wasting 99 cents on a game that was supposed to be educational and fun but was ultimately content-weak and boring? As I think about this idea more and more, I can't help but wonder if people really consider the platform in which they are creating for. The mobile and touch-screen market is a nascent place still waiting to be fully discovered. So often, people build mobile and tablet experiences based on what they already know; mainly, how games work well on computers and consoles. But what we need to start thinking about is affordances: mainly, what is it that the tablet gives us that other experiences don't? What can we utilize that can't be utilized elsewhere? Ultimately, I think that the mobile market will improve leaps and bounds if we start considering these questions more often in building mobile experiences.
Let's consider the three broadest affordances that tablets and mobile devices give us. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but a good place to start. The first is portability. Unlike laptops, consoles, and handheld gaming, mobile apps are arguably the most portable. What feeds into this portability even more is the fact that these games and activities live on devices that people already carry with them (i.e. their phones and tablets). No longer does is an entirely separate platform needed to engage in a game in any space. While most young children don't have devices of their own, countless studies have discussed the pass-back effect - the act of parents passing their devices to their children to play games or watch videos in the car, doctors office, or anywhere else.
Mobile devices also give us touch-screen capability. No longer does a child need to have the acute motor skills to move a mouse, type on a keyboard, or use a gaming controller. By just touching objects with their finger(s), they can manipulate an entire world in an enriching and interesting way. Some argue that dependency on touch screen can slow-down development on developing motor skills such as crayon holding or handling objects in real space. Nonetheless, the touch-screen capability is an affordance of mobile devices not found in most other spaces.
The last affordance I believe that is worth considering is one that actually exists in most gaming experiences: the ability to access worlds and experiences that a child could not normally access. Most children I know can't fly, can't make food regenerate, or can't jump from platform to platform. However, in a gaming universe, any of this is totally possible. Gaming allows kids to have a multitude of experiences they may not otherwise have. This affordance becomes unique to the mobile experience when combined with the other affordances discussed: the portability and the touch-screen capability. Kids can now have experiences beyond their means anywhere in the world and in a way that is easy for them to control.
So what makes a bad game? It's a game that doesn't take into account its affordances. If an experience in an app can just as easily be experienced in the child's real and accessible world, that's a bad app. If the movements needed to control an app are ones that are better suited for another screen environment, like a computer, that's a bad app. If the downloaded app doesn't take into consideration the places it will be played and how the user approaches the experience, that's a bad app.
It seems simple enough to ask these questions of an app as you develop it for the mobile market, but so often, this consideration is pushed to the wayside for the sake of a developer and designer's vision. With just a step-back worth of perspective, I believe that the educational and overall app market can drastically change for the better.
Let's consider the three broadest affordances that tablets and mobile devices give us. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but a good place to start. The first is portability. Unlike laptops, consoles, and handheld gaming, mobile apps are arguably the most portable. What feeds into this portability even more is the fact that these games and activities live on devices that people already carry with them (i.e. their phones and tablets). No longer does is an entirely separate platform needed to engage in a game in any space. While most young children don't have devices of their own, countless studies have discussed the pass-back effect - the act of parents passing their devices to their children to play games or watch videos in the car, doctors office, or anywhere else.
Mobile devices also give us touch-screen capability. No longer does a child need to have the acute motor skills to move a mouse, type on a keyboard, or use a gaming controller. By just touching objects with their finger(s), they can manipulate an entire world in an enriching and interesting way. Some argue that dependency on touch screen can slow-down development on developing motor skills such as crayon holding or handling objects in real space. Nonetheless, the touch-screen capability is an affordance of mobile devices not found in most other spaces.
The last affordance I believe that is worth considering is one that actually exists in most gaming experiences: the ability to access worlds and experiences that a child could not normally access. Most children I know can't fly, can't make food regenerate, or can't jump from platform to platform. However, in a gaming universe, any of this is totally possible. Gaming allows kids to have a multitude of experiences they may not otherwise have. This affordance becomes unique to the mobile experience when combined with the other affordances discussed: the portability and the touch-screen capability. Kids can now have experiences beyond their means anywhere in the world and in a way that is easy for them to control.
So what makes a bad game? It's a game that doesn't take into account its affordances. If an experience in an app can just as easily be experienced in the child's real and accessible world, that's a bad app. If the movements needed to control an app are ones that are better suited for another screen environment, like a computer, that's a bad app. If the downloaded app doesn't take into consideration the places it will be played and how the user approaches the experience, that's a bad app.
It seems simple enough to ask these questions of an app as you develop it for the mobile market, but so often, this consideration is pushed to the wayside for the sake of a developer and designer's vision. With just a step-back worth of perspective, I believe that the educational and overall app market can drastically change for the better.
 |
| Source: http://grandinkids.com/ |
No comments:
Post a Comment