Month: March 2026

I spent around 3 hours of my tutorial with learning basic constraints. I have used quite a few of them in the past and therefore I only listened to it as a reminder. I also feel like I learn it better when I actually see them used in a real example.

Constraints such as: (sourse 250 page documentation of the course)

The clamp to constraints forces a bone location to stick to a selected curve.
The damped track axis makes the owner targeting (aiming) at a target.
The Locked track allows the owner to aim at a target but limits its rotation to only one axis.
The stretch to constraint allows the owner to aim at a target, and alsochanges its length and width based on the target distance.
The track to constraint is great for cameras.
The Copy location constraint forces its owner to have the same location as its target.
The Copy rotation constraint, as all the other transform constraints, uses world space to world space by default. The owner gets the same orientation as the target.

Then it was time for my first rig.

I began where everyone begins. With a basic ball. Everything was still quite simple, however I don’t think I ever did a good working squash and stretch. The main focus of this lecture was to get into good habits. As an example, renaming your bones as soon as you create them by pressing F2.

Generarally the ball needed a total of 5 bones. The rig consists of a root bone, a deformer bone, a rotation bone, a mechanical bone and two squash or stretch bones. The root bone is above all the other bones in the hierarchy and every other bone follows the root. The deformation bone is the only bone directly influencing the ball model However, the deformation is depending on the mechanical bone, which stretches from (a constraint) the base to the top squash.

I had a few brief moments of confusion due to the fact that I work in Blender 5.0 and the tutorials are in a 3 or 4 version of it. The general instructions were clear and easy to follow with a few pauses in between.

The finished rig is clear structured and read to be animated with.

Here is the rig in movement.

The next project in the tutorial is a spider ball. It is essentially a little robot which can hide its head and legs to look like a ball. It jumps from 5 lessons for the ball rig to 28 lessons for the spider ball rig. I assume I will have more to write about next time. Stay tuned!

On a physical and personal level, participation requires tools and environments that match children’s abilities and ways of expression. Visual materials, simple instructions, and tactile elements such as stickers or drawing tools help make ideas more understandable and engaging. Equally important is creating a safe and playful atmosphere where children feel comfortable expressing themselves. Participation is not only about capability, but also about emotion and confidence.

At the same time, participation is shaped by broader social and systemic factors. Access to appropriate spaces, time for workshops, and available resources all influence whether children can be included. Cultural attitudes towards play and children’s roles in decision-making also play a significant part. In many cases, adults still dominate design processes, limiting children’s involvement.

Identifying barriers made this even more evident. These barriers are not only physical, such as the lack of suitable tools, but also social and institutional. Time constraints, limited budgets, and established decision-making structures often prevent participatory approaches from being implemented. Additionally, children are frequently not taken seriously as contributors, which further reduces their involvement.

In the “before” scenario, playgrounds were often standardized, repetitive, and primarily driven by efficiency and cost. Design decisions were made without involving children, resulting in spaces that did not fully respond to their needs. As a consequence, children were less engaged, and playgrounds were not used to their full potential. The process itself was straightforward and inexpensive, but it lacked depth in terms of user experience.

In contrast, the “after” scenario highlights what changes when children are included in the design process. Playgrounds become more engaging, diverse, and meaningful, as they reflect children’s real experiences and desires. This leads to increased use, longer engagement, and a stronger sense of ownership among children. However, this shift also introduces new challenges. The design process becomes more complex, time-consuming, and resource-intensive.

At the center of the system are playgrounds. Surrounding them are primary users such as children, parents, and caregivers, who actively engage with these spaces. Beyond this immediate layer, broader stakeholders like municipalities, urban designers, and local communities influence how playgrounds are designed, built, and maintained.

The map also highlights key relationships, such as the connection between children and parents, and the role of municipalities in shaping decisions that affect both groups. These interactions reveal that playgrounds are not isolated spaces but part of a larger social and institutional system.

Playgrounds is not only about physical structures, but about navigating a network of stakeholders, needs, and influences. This perspective reinforces the importance of including children’s voices within a complex design ecosystem.