I parent completely differently than most, but this top three really gets me:
- Text does not actually provide guidance to a large percentage of your user base as they can’t read it
How do kids learn to read without exposure?
- Text takes up valuable space that could be used for better graphics or aesthetically pleasing empty space
But again, how do you teach kids to read?
- Text is visually unattractive and off-putting to most children.
Nonsense - text is only visually unattractive to children because we treat them like they can’t interact with it. Text is a visual representation of language - if it’s ’offputting’ to your children, you fumbled at the goal line.
For the love of children, stop wasting neuroplasticity. By the first grade, your teachers know how much you promote the written language at home. By grade four, the damage has been done.
Delightfulness? I'm seeing some indication "delightness" may be a word (can't say 100%)...but it seems a poor substitution for IMO the natural version of it
<Kids also love tactility, and the more your 2D app can feel like a real physical object the better.>
All of a sudden, this delightful article about a dad creating a toy for his kids now reads like a big-tobacco eyes-only internal memo: How to hook a kid on a screen when they should be interacting with real world physical objects.
https://www.jonathansapps.com/
Someone recently suggesting this and first thought I came to my mind is prevailing advice is to not show kids screen as long as possible
To me, further highlights the extent to which all touchscreens are essentially "child-level" interfaces.
This isn't inherently bad, but does likely put a hard limit on the complexity (and dare I say, usefulness) of the tasks you can do with them.
If they get you to the complexity, fine (e.g. dialing a number to speak with a human) but also, if they're that repetitive, maybe you don't need a screen (less of this in cars, please)
I noticed that a lot of apps for young children seem not to test them properly with real children. Examples:
- No / bad multitouch. Children will touch the screen when holding the device and then use the other hand to perform an action. With no multitouch or focus on the first touch action the app does not register later actions and the child gets super frustrated. In addition, with very small hands it is very likely that multiple fingers touch the screen, especially the thumb if the index finger is used.
- Controls close to the edge: On many devices swiping actions close to the edge will trigger phone status menus or switching between apps. This will confuse children.
> Controls close to the edge: On many devices swiping actions close to the edge will trigger phone status menus or switching between apps. This will confuse children.
It is a pain enough for adults at times!
A related issue is how easy it is to trigger your first point (accidental multi-touch, or just accidental touch, at the side of the display due to low or zero gap from the device edge to the screen edge) on many modern devices.
I loved "Disney's Magic Artist Studio" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoyg4HB-nyc ) when I was a kid. You could spray cream onto the canvas, or add bugs and eye balls!!!
16 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 39.5 ms ] thread- Text does not actually provide guidance to a large percentage of your user base as they can’t read it
How do kids learn to read without exposure?
- Text takes up valuable space that could be used for better graphics or aesthetically pleasing empty space
But again, how do you teach kids to read?
- Text is visually unattractive and off-putting to most children.
Nonsense - text is only visually unattractive to children because we treat them like they can’t interact with it. Text is a visual representation of language - if it’s ’offputting’ to your children, you fumbled at the goal line.
For the love of children, stop wasting neuroplasticity. By the first grade, your teachers know how much you promote the written language at home. By grade four, the damage has been done.
All of a sudden, this delightful article about a dad creating a toy for his kids now reads like a big-tobacco eyes-only internal memo: How to hook a kid on a screen when they should be interacting with real world physical objects.
This isn't inherently bad, but does likely put a hard limit on the complexity (and dare I say, usefulness) of the tasks you can do with them.
If they get you to the complexity, fine (e.g. dialing a number to speak with a human) but also, if they're that repetitive, maybe you don't need a screen (less of this in cars, please)
OK: "add delight"
A lot of apps intended for mainly adult use could do well by at least considering much of this advice.
- No / bad multitouch. Children will touch the screen when holding the device and then use the other hand to perform an action. With no multitouch or focus on the first touch action the app does not register later actions and the child gets super frustrated. In addition, with very small hands it is very likely that multiple fingers touch the screen, especially the thumb if the index finger is used.
- Controls close to the edge: On many devices swiping actions close to the edge will trigger phone status menus or switching between apps. This will confuse children.
It is a pain enough for adults at times!
A related issue is how easy it is to trigger your first point (accidental multi-touch, or just accidental touch, at the side of the display due to low or zero gap from the device edge to the screen edge) on many modern devices.
uh huh? This seems more like it's the authors idea of what he wants children to be than how children are in reality.