critque

Hi! guys this is the general points of criticism/where things could improve:

1. Solutions in search of problems: many of the concepts I saw were not well grounded in an issue or problem that people (users/children/parents etc.) actually face. I had the impression a lot of it was more interactive junk being  pushed at people, rather than products that had intrinsic value for the physical abilities they had the ambition to foster in users.

2. Path of least resistance: too many of the concepts cards looked like the product of about 30 minutes of thought and effort, (scribbled on butchers’  paper or ripped out of someone’s visual diary) rather than 4-5 person hours (which is what we could expect given a group size of 6). This is independent of the quality of the ideas on the cards, some of which were still okay. But some teams really need to take much more pride in what they present to us. If this was a presentation to a client, only a few would get a contract.

3. Too few ideas: on the strength of some of these teams' three (best) concept cards, I would guess the teams are working from a pool of only 6 or 8 total concepts, if that. Some probably only 3. There was usually a concept with potential in every team, but often the other concepts were just “fillers” that looked like the first or second idea one might have in response to the brief. They need to have a pool of 30 or 40 ideas if they want to expect to have a really good idea in there somewhere.

4. Superficial digitisation: a number of the concepts for the sprint were just bits of technology glued onto existing physical systems (whack-a-mole, frisbee tag, soccer) where it was doubtful that the technology actually added any value above and beyond the physical system. In these cases, the original physical games were actually more likely to build skills. Buttons and lights don’t just make things better.

5. Vague/general notions of skill: Most of the skills I saw identified on the cards were things like dexterity, fitness, strength, stamina, hand-eye coordination etc. These are very broad, bordering on abilities rather than skills. They are okay and they fit the brief, but I was disappointed that I only occasionally saw specific physical skills like drumming rhythm, violin-playing, woodcarving, watercolour painting, etc. supported by their products. This also relates to how many teams (almost all) have interpreted the brief as an invitation to design a game (ironically a word that is found nowhere in the brief).

6. Designing from somewhere, but not from the brief: A lot of the products they presented were games that looked fun and playable, but that do not seriously address a skill-building domain. It looked more like an added bonus that you might develop a physical skill by playing it, e.g. You might become more fit if you play super frisbee tag. If a child REALLY wanted to train his/her fitness, however, that game is unlikely to be their #1 option, since there are innovative and successful systems already in existence to build fitness in kids. This gives me an insight into their process—few teams are working from the brief, i.e. starting with users, contexts and a skills and working out from there to develop concepts.