Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> We established an interdisciplinmy, intergenemtional collaboration in the fidl of 1995, between the University of New Mexico’s Computer Science Departmen4 the College of Fducatiou and local Albuquerque elementary school children. The goal of this reaeamh was to develop an expressive digital medium with an intuitive zooming - to support a learning environment tbr children. In the _ of this eollaboratio~ design methodologies that support a child’s role in the development of new technologies WE explored. What follows is a summary of our iterative design experience, collaboration, and the results of the resuch to date. <s> BIB001 </s> Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> + To be published in Fall 1998 by Morgan Kaufmann as a chapter in the book: The Design of Children’s Technology: How We Design, What We Design and Why, edited by Allison Druin. ABSTRACT “That’s silly!” “I’m bored!” “I like that!” “Why do I have to do this?” “What is this for?” These are all important responses and questions that come from children. As our design partners in developing new technologies, children can offer bluntly honest views of their world. They have their own likes, dislikes, and needs that are not the same as adults’ (Druin, Stewart, Proft, Bederson, & Hollan, 1997). As the development of new technologies for children becomes commonplace in industry and university research labs, children’s input into the design and development process is critical. We need to establish new development methodologies that enable us to stop and listen, and learn to collaborate with children of all ages. In the chapter that follows, a discussion of new research methodologies will be presented. <s> BIB002 </s> Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> A flexible pipe joint comprising a cylindrical tie member for tieing the ends of pipes together and a flexible envelope for fluid flow conduction between the pipes. The tie member comprises a plurality of annular series of parallel tie bars arranged co-axially and there is adjustable mounting means for the tie member in the envelope for enabling the tie member to accommodate misalignment of the pipes on installation. Further misalignment produced by thermal expansion of the pipes is accommodated by the tie member by uniform flexing of the tie bars. <s> BIB003 </s> Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> This paper suggests a framework for understanding the roles that children can play in the technology design process, particularly in regards to designing technologies that support learning. Each role, user, tester, informant and design partner has been defined based upon a review of the literature and the author's own laboratory research experiences. This discussion does not suggest that any one role is appropriate for all research or development needs. Instead, by understanding this framework the reader may be able to make more informed decisions about the design processes they choose to use with children in creating new technologies. This paper will present for each role a historical overview, research and development methods, as well as the strengths, challenges and unique contributions associated with children in the design process. <s> BIB004 </s> Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> This study reports on the first part of a research project that investigated children’s cognitive, affective, and physical behaviors as they use the Yahooligans! search engine to find information on a specific search task. Twenty-two seventh-grade science children from a middle school located in Knoxville, Tennessee participated in the project. Their cognitive and physical behaviors were captured using Lotus ScreenCam, a Windowsbased software package that captures and replays activities recorded in Web browsers, such as Netscape. Their affective states were captured via a one-on-one exit interview. A new measure called “Web Traversal Measure” was developed to measure children’s “weighted” traversal effectiveness and efficiency scores, as well as their quality moves in Yahooligans! Children’s prior experience in using the Internet/Web and their knowledge of the Yahooligans! interface were gathered via a questionnaire. The findings provided insights into children’s behaviors and success, as their weighted traversal effectiveness and efficiency scores, as well as quality moves. Implications for user training and system design are discussed. <s> BIB005 </s> Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> Preface. 1. Introduction: Why Web Usability? 2. Page Design. 3. Content Design. 4. Site Design. 5. Intranet Design. 6. Accessibility for Users with Disabilities. 7. International Use: Serving A Global Audience. 8. Future Predictions: The Only Web Constant Is Change. 9. Conclusion: Simplicity in Web Design. Recommended Readings. Index. <s> BIB006 </s> Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> ABSTRACT As more information resources become accessible using computers, our digital interfaces to those resources need to be appropriate for all people. However when it comes to digital libraries, the interfaces have typically been designed for older children or adults. Therefore, we have begun to develop a digital library interface developmentally appropriate for young children (ages 5–10 years old). Our prototype system we now call “SearchKids” offers a graphical interface for querying, browsing and reviewing search results. This paper describes our motivation for the research, the design partnership we established between children and adults, our design process, the technology outcomes of our current work, and the lessons we have learned. Categories and Subject Descriptors H.5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: User Interfaces - graphical user interfaces, interaction styles, screen design, user-centered design. H.3.7 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Digital Libraries - user issues. H.3.3 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Information Search and Retrieval - query formulation. D.2.1 [Software Engineering]: Requirements/Specifications - elicitation methods. General Terms Design, Human Factors. <s> BIB007 </s> Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications <s> Designing for children and children as designers <s> This study involved eleven seventh-grade children in designing interfaces for Web search engines that meet their needs. Using a participatory approach, children drew interfaces and articulated their purposes. The layouts of these interfaces varied, but the features/capabilities described in them were similar. These were, keyword searching with instructions; natural language/phrase. . . <s> BIB008
Recently, researchers such as BIB005 BIB008  ,  , BIB001 , BIB002 BIB007 ,  BIB003 ,  , Bowler (2003a, 2003b, in press) , and Large, Beheshti, and Raman (2002) have advocated a more child-oriented approach to design. They argue that children have a lot to offer in the design process as a whole and that it is advisable to include them in it. Not all researchers, however, share their views.  , for example, agrees about respecting the needs of children as expressed by children, in his case within the context of the Web. Most Web sites, he argues, are designed using ''pure folklore about how kids supposedly behave,'' and as a consequence, some of the children's sites are too complex and complicated. Children in fact seem to have the greatest success using Web sites intended for adults because these sites are simple and comply with Web design usability principles. From this, it would seem that Nielsen is in agreement with Druin that it is desirable to involve children in the design process (or at the very least, act upon their suggestions regarding usability). Where Nielsen differs from Druin is in his opinion that children are incapable of overcoming many usability problems. From his research with children, he found them impatient by nature, and thus if the sites were too complex, the children simply left the Web site BIB006 . He argues that this impatience precludes children from being able to critique sites for usability issues and subsequently to make suggestions for improvement. Of course, this is much truer of the Web environment than it would be, for example, in the case of software development. Druin herself does concede to at least one difficulty in the inclusion of children in the design process. She says that studies by Piaget in the early 1970s revealed that young children have a more difficult time verbalizing their thoughts, especially those dealing with abstract concepts and actions BIB004 . Therefore, a lot of what they say ''must be interpreted within the context of concrete experiences'' (p. 2).  , along with many developmentalists, agree that children can respond to stimuli in only a limited way and that because of this, exposure to stimuli should be controlled so as not to overload their receptive capabilities. They fear that ''Virtual interactions could conceivably give children a distorted conception of the relation between simulated and actual representations of phenomena'' (p. 40). A design project can be a very complicated, taxing task. To involve children in the process from beginning to end, as Druin does, could overexpose them to the stimuli to which Harbeck and Sherman refer. Conversely, however, involving the children would help them to overcome the problem of differentiating between simulations and actual phenomena. Including children in the design process, then, has its advantages and disadvantages. Children can come up with ideas that adults might not think of   , but the downside is that they may want things included in the design that are impossible to realize. Yet constantly reminding children that certain things cannot be built may inhibit their creativity.  advise researchers to ground the children's expectations before they start the usability sessions by explaining exactly what the process will be. If not prepared in advance, many children expect to see a finished piece of software when they enter the testing area and may be disappointed when presented with a paper prototype.  recommends using a multidisciplinary team approach. Why not adapt this approach to create a multigenerational, multidisciplinary team? As he states, ''No longer can design be the province of one person or even of one specialty. . .. User-centered design requires a variety of skills, knowledge, and, most importantly, information about the intended user and usage'' (p. 13). In the same way, for children's technologies, having children as part of the design team will provide that all-important information about the intended user and usage. In today's technology-savvy society, there is a growing recognition of the need to create technologies that will enable children to challenge themselves and to question the world around them. Druin (2002, p. 2) believes that involving children in the design process will address this issue. ''We need to understand how we can create new technologies that offer children control of a world where they are so often not in control.'  have found that ''children can't discuss learning goals that they have not yet reached themselves [and] interpreting children's dialogue is not as straightforward as may be assumed. In addition, there is the issue of overturning traditional power relations between adult and child . . .'' (p. 30). This issue of power relations is problematic. Scaife and his colleagues do not think that a complete overturn of power relations between adults and children can be achieved. As justification for using informant design over a completely participatory approach such as cooperative inquiry, Scaife and Rogers ask if it is ''possible for adults to treat children like themselves while at the same time not being patronizing? Conversely, can children make contributions about the content and the way they should be taught-something which adults have always been responsible for?'' (p. 343). Although Scaife et al. recognize the value that children add to the process as informant designers, unlike Druin and her team BIB004 BIB001 BIB002 , they cannot envisage children as completely equal design partners with adults.