One of the most inspiring parts of my research has been discovering how many projects already involve children as active contributors to playground design

The article “Children as Co-Designers” from Playground Research presents several examples where children are invited into the design process long before construction begins. Instead of asking children whether they like a finished playground, designers involve them in workshops, drawing sessions, storytelling activities, model making, and discussions about how they imagine play. These activities allow children to express ideas that adults might never consider.

One thing that stood out to me is that children rarely describe playgrounds in terms of equipment. Adults often ask questions such as “Do you want a bigger slide?” or “Should we add another swing?” Children, however, often talk about experiences. They imagine places for adventure, hiding, climbing, discovering, building, making friends, or inventing stories. This difference shows why simply asking children what equipment they want may not be enough.

Another interesting idea comes from the Design Council’s systemic design approach. The report argues that design problems should not be viewed as isolated objects but as systems involving many stakeholders, relationships, and long-term effects. Playground design is a perfect example of this. Children, parents, municipalities, schools, designers, safety regulations, and local communities all influence the final outcome. If one stakeholder is missing—especially children—the system becomes incomplete.

Rather than interviewing children in a formal way, designers create playful activities that feel like games instead of research. This inspired many of the low-fidelity prototypes I have been developing, where children use cards, stickers, drawings, and playful prompts instead of long verbal explanations.

One important lesson I learned is that participation is not simply asking children for opinions. It is about designing methods that allow them to communicate in ways that feel natural, enjoyable, and appropriate for their age. Good co-design is less about collecting answers and more about creating opportunities for children to share their imagination.

References

Design Council. (2021). Beyond Net Zero: A Systemic Design Approach. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/fileadmin/uploads/dc/Documents/Beyond%2520Net%2520Zero%2520-%2520A%2520Systemic%2520Design%2520Approach.pdf

Playground Research. (n.d.). Children as Co-Designers. https://playgroundresearch.org/children-as-co-designers/

Playground Research. (n.d.). Playground Research. https://playgroundresearch.org/

IDEO U. (2020). What is Co-Design? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2_6ozX4G_M&t=40s

Participatory Design Foundation. (Video). Participatory Design Process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PDWzPtpCZ8

As I continued developing the card prototype, I asked myself a simple question:

How do children naturally talk about playgrounds?

The answer is—they often don’t.

Children usually describe experiences rather than designs. They might say “I like climbing trees,” “I want somewhere to hide,” or “Water is fun.” They think through feelings, materials, and play, not through architectural plans.

This observation became the basis of my next prototype.

Instead of asking children to design a playground directly, I created three categories:

• Materials & Elements
• Feelings
• Play

Children can connect these categories in different ways. For example, they might associate water with freedom, or wood with climbing. There are no correct combinations.

This approach is inspired by participatory design, where the role of the designer is not to collect fixed answers but to create tools that support expression.

I also intentionally left empty cards in every category. Children should not be limited by my assumptions. If they think of something I did not include, they can simply create a new card.

In this sense, the cards become less like a survey and more like a shared design language between children and designers.

After creating my three first low-fidelity prototypes, I started comparing them instead of thinking about them as separate ideas. Each prototype focused on a different aspect of participation: materials, emotions, or spatial experiences. However, while reflecting on them, I realized that they all had something in common—they encouraged children to communicate visually instead of relying only on words.

The more I thought about my research question, the more I realized that my goal is not to design a better playground, but to design a better way for children to participate in the design process.

Looking at examples from Playground Research, I noticed that successful co-design projects rarely begin with asking children direct questions like “What playground do you want?” Instead, they provide children with playful tools that help ideas emerge naturally through making, arranging, discussing, and imagining.

This made me reconsider my own prototypes. The first prototype; the card system felt the most flexible. It could easily be expanded, adapted, or combined with other activities. Unlike a questionnaire, it allows children to explore different possibilities without feeling like there is a right or wrong answer.

Rather than designing one perfect activity, I decided to continue developing the card-based approach. It has the potential to become a playful design tool that encourages conversation, creativity, and collaboration.

Instead of collecting answers, I want to create opportunities for children to express ideas that adults might never think of.

References

• Playground Research. (2024). Children as Co-Designers. https://playgroundresearch.org/children-as-co-designers/
• Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.

Design & Research 2 | For: Birgit Bachler

Final Prototype Video

Building this really helped me see how much impact interaction design can actually have on a massive, real-world problem. Dealing with the Austrian visa system is usually just a nightmare of heavy cognitive load and confusing legal German, but working through this project showed me how we can systematically break that down.

The main goal of this prototype wasn’t to have a 100% finished product todayit was really just to see if it’s even possible to take a system this complex and push it in a totally new, human-centered direction. I wanted to prove that transparency and good design can exist in government tech.

Obviously, it’s still a work in progress. I’m going to keep polishing it, refining the UI, and making it a lot better moving forward. But for now, this video shows the core vision of what a stress-free Residence Portal could actually look like.

Check out the video below to see it in action

Click here to see the prototype

How many times have bought a plant for their house? How many times have you ended up killing it?

This research is about finding a simple way to help people take better care of their plants—using technology to support us where we usually fail

But the goal isn’t just to add more tech. We’re already surrounded by it.

My goal as an interaction designer is to create something a simple object like a lamp that naturally fits into your home. Something that can also create a cozy athosphere engaged the senses with lights and sounds., tracking the health of the plant.

Because in the future, we would have more technological device. So it’s important to start designing systems that are not only efficient, but also comforting. It’s been proven to indoors plants have a really postivie impact on our mental health.

So this project is not about using tehcnology to keep our plant alive but using it to built a better relationship with the nature itself