WK3 Interactive Technology in Public– “Name Me” at Build-A-Bear

The joy of being a kid nowadays — there is whole billion-dollar industry devoted to making them happy and smile.

When I arrived at the flagship on 5th avenue/ 46th street, they told me it no longer available in the store anymore. I then asked maybe there is one elsewhere in the city. They told me to try FAO. So I traveled north to arrive at FAO.

 

The Build-A-Bear company has been known for building your own stuffed animal. The purpose of Build-A-Bear Workshop is to create a memory with family and friends by offering a hands-on, interactive retail-entertainment experience.  Here at FAO floor, it is almost like a playground. The place is divided into sections– choose me, hear me, stuff me, dress me and name me.

  

 

This is what the “Name Me” station look like. Starting by scanning the tag on your new toy (using the scanner on the bottom right corner of the picture), customer answer a few questions about their new toy, including the birth date and its name,  information will then be stored as data and used to produce a customized birth certificate, very much like giving birth to a baby at hospital.

 

A 6-yr-old just finished stuffing her bear, and come to the station trying name her pink bear. She was obviously lost as soon as she made an effort climbing onto the station. First, accessibility — the station is too big and too high for her height and she had to stand on a chair to reach the screen. With the assistance of store staff and her parents, she then faced screens of many features- the color choices of the certificate, address information/phone number  of the giver and receiver , gender of the toy, name of herself and the toy….etc. Second, universal design becomes a complicated design — when you want to include everything for everybody, do you actually include or exclude users? The kid just wanted to name her new toy, and the interaction the station provided is far beyond.  This time, her parents couldn’t figure out and the staff had to do it for the family, while the 6-year-old just stood and watched.

With the experience in mind, I particularly enjoy last and this week’s reading.  Aesthetic does matter, usable but ugly is not going to work forever when you look everyday design from a long-term perspective and the potential influence of it. When people are presented with “usable but ugly” and “usable and pretty”, there is no doubt people would leap for the later. Time, sensibility and the skills of those who create mainstream design are all required, when it comes to design for everyday things.

In this week’s reading, Pullin raises an interesting perspective and makes a successful argument on glasses used to be seen as medial aid shift a long way from medial model (medical necessity) to social model(fashion accessories). I also agree that challenging the notion– discretion is the priority and always the best practice, will change/better many other medical designs for disability.

In the example of “Name Me” station, a design for kids, even though the company tries to encapsulate entertaining experience, it is not very much a device of social design, yet.  I suspect the designer(s) is a parent him/herself. If I was on the team, I will invite more collaborations — kids wear designers, pre-school teachers, and above all, kids should be invited when they create a new experience device in the future. I will also make transaction steps easier and simpler, while giver and receiver of the gist have different naming needs, provide features that are in only need, don’t take everybody through the whole process.