From Why does everything suck? by Hank Williams
On Wednesday I attended the Sandbox Summit here in New York, which is a conference about the intersection between technology, toys, play, and learning. For someone deeply embedded in the software development world, but also deeply troubled by the state of education in America, the event seemed fascinating and also pregnant with possibility. And it did not disappoint.
And while many of the speakers had lots of really interesting stuff to say, one statement by Nancy Schulman, Director, 92nd Street Y Nursery School really got my attention. She said “kindergarten is becoming more like regular school, but I think regular school and life should become more like kindergarten.”
For those that may miss the nuance, what she was suggesting is that joyful playful exploration is critical to learning. Rote learning and memorization is less effective. As I sat, I realized how much the ideas I was hearing relate to how we make products. Much of this way of thinking I believe is already embedded in my thought processes, but there is something different and crucially important about codifying it, and expressing it concisely. What Schulman was saying got me immediately thinking about Apple.
I believe that a big part of the reason that Apple has been successful is that they figured out long ago that their products had to have the elements of joyful exploration that are the hallmarks of great toys. The concept of play is generally something associated with children, but I believe that that desire and that need never die. It is just muted by the expectations of adulthood.
The best example of this is my mother’s excitement about her new iPhone. My mother loves her iPhone because it is the best toy she has had since childhood. No, she has not said this to me, but I can see it clear as day. When she played her first YouTube video, she could not wait to tell me. For her, the iPhone is hard enough to still present challenges, and yet easy enough that she can overcome them. And the payoffs are joyous. The sound, the animation, the smooth virtual physics are incredibly compelling and toy-like. But of course it is not a “toy” it is a phone. It has a real function so she could never be accused of “playing.”
And so, the real question here is what does Apple, and what does the Sandbox Summit teach us about our way forward. First, I think that Apple sets a great example of what is possible, and it should inspire us to make our products more playful, accessible and exploratory.
But the second and more important lesson is that adulthood, and teen-hood are not demarcation points for a reduced interest in play – in fact the converse may be the case, meaning play may in fact become *more* important as we get older. And with our high school graduation rates at 50% in our 20 largest cities, something is obviously and seriously wrong with our current process. With that said I suggest that perhaps our educational system could use a serious injection of not so serious exploration and play. It seems to work for Apple.
转载后记：
很凑巧，今天中午看了Discovery关于游戏产业发展的纪录片，包括超级玛丽、金刚、俄罗斯方块等等超级经典游戏的诞生史。或者是游戏设计师童年的记忆，或者是现实中的数学小游戏，简单的构思便能影响几代人。试图想象是否有某些电影具有同样量级的威力，貌似没有。
在这篇文章中，Hank Williams所说的”playing”应该可以用更准确的词来替代，就是interaction。游戏与电影的最大区别应该就在于它的交互性，于是，游戏不再只是编导和角色的自娱自乐，每个玩家都能通过交互过程，或融入剧情，或获得成就感，或挑战变态级别的难度。这赋予了它比电影强大得多的感染力。
那么，学习呢？也会有灌输式的单方面教育和交互的教育。作为一个中国教育摧残过的小孩，学习似乎不需要乐趣，因为“快乐学习”之类的玩意儿向来没有多少效率。既然有了小学到大学的一套评分体系，拿高分才是正经的。作者提到20个大城市的高中毕业率仅为50%，看样子他想引入更轻松有趣的交互过程来解决这一问题。不知道什么时候中国才有人胆敢在面对这样的毕业率时提出这样的设想。
