Re-Reflection on Theory. In Relation to Our New Concept

The following post aims to show how our concept applies to theory. How it understands the rule and chooses to conform or not and an explanation why.

Relation To Donald Norman;

1. Visibility 

The interaction addresses visibility. Visual feedback returns to both the child and user. The functions of the device are easy to comprehend, even though this is not essential as small children may not be able to comprehend / need to understand how the device operates, only respond to feedback

2. Feedback

As previously mentioned, visual feedback returns to the child and parent/carer. Further feedback also returns to the user through audio feedback. 

3. Constraints

Due to the restricted function of this interaction. The device is heavily constrained in the user's mind. 

4.Mapping

Mapping isn’t as essential in this type of device. This is due to the interaction only having more input and output, or one step...

5. Consistency

Again, this device only does one thing. Consistency is not an issue as this interaction will only have one type feedback.

6. Affordance

Finally, the device concept applies well to the context. It is designed to accommodate to the lifestyles of the child and carer. 

Relation To Cooper: Chapters 1 + 2:

This concept is designed to be as simple as possible. The interaction seeks to understand the user's lifestyle and mould around his lifestyle and characteristics. Also, mainly due to assignment constraints, the device seeks to help interaction between digital and physical worlds. Essentially, the user/s cannot get confused in the transition between the physical and digital world.