Nugent Residence Hall at U of I Urbana-Champaign is designed for students with disabilities.

Their web site. (Note that this and all websites of the Disability Resources and Educational Services for the University are screen-reader compliant for those using alternative access.)

This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. This is really beyond just “accommodation” and taking it to the next level of full inclusion into society.

Tactile display

August 12, 2010

Tactile display.

Sorry, time constraints limit me from talking much about this. Thinking of applications will have to be an exercise left to the reader.

http://www.hizook.com/blog/2010/08/11/electrotactile-arrays-texture-and-pressure-feedback-during-robotic-teleoperation

Scratch-pad

August 8, 2010

Blogs are great places to get peer-review on ideas before the ideas are fully formed.

So the big flaw with the model of types of play is that it doesn’t account for differences in types of play by social interaction.There is some progression of social interactive skill in the conference poster (actual paper is Manuscript In Preparation and will be done by the end of the year, I promise), however, this is much more general than I’d like. If it is going to integrate into the model, it needs to be truly play-specific instead of communication-general.

However, I’m having a hard time just making it into a Z-axis because there isn’t a continuous line of progression of development of the types of social interaction in play. I think.

And it is discontinuous, where some types of social interaction just don’t make any sense for certain types of play.

So anyway, let me list the types of social interaction that occur during play as I see it. Let me know if I’ve forgotten any and if you think they go in some specific order or hierarchy.

  • None. Solitary play.
  • Reciprocal emotional sharing (Baby and another smile at each other as in peek-a-boo or hey-look-at-me.)
  • Toleration (parallel play, no direct interaction)
  • Non-play competitive (“gimme that”)
  • Cooperative play with shared goals (“how high can we stack it?”)
  • Collaborative pretend (shared setting of goals and reality-setting)
  • Competitive-collaborative pretend (“I’ll be the princess and you’re the servant” “I’m the superhero and you be the bad-guy”)
  • Competitive, no winner (shared, but mutually exclusive goals, e.g. Tag, Keep-away, King-of-the-Mountain)
  • Competitive, with win condition (most traditional games)

Not all of these are possible in all types of play. I think. Maybe I’m wrong. And they seem to go roughly in a progression from youngest-to-oldest the way I listed them, but some of them all develop in one place (sociodramatic).

A spot on Attack of the Show about designing game controllers for people with disabilities brought the Wii Assist team at University of Delaware to my attention.

http://tv.gawker.com/5603299/wii-assist-wii-can-make-a-difference

University of Delawarehttp://vimeo.com/6365551

Games make a difference

August 2, 2010

Jane McGonigal has created a game called SuperBetter, which turns the rehabilitation process into a game.

SuperBetter covers an area on the play graph straddling pretend play and games with rules, with a similar footprint to Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft except a little to the left (the pretend setting is self-directed), and larger footprint vertically (the gameplay is highly emergent from real-world experiences, pushing it lower, and it’s goals exist in the real-world and are quite serious, pushing its upper border upwards).

Note to self, perhaps I need a better vocabulary for talking about this.

Anyway, here is Jane talking about the origins of SuperBetter briefly:

and a longer video of her TED talk on the origin and purpose of her “serious” games.