Author: dila.bayraktar

While reading about PlaySoundGround, I was struck by how a seemingly simple idea—combining sound and play—can completely transform the playground experience. The project turns familiar playground equipment into interactive musical instruments, where physical movement directly produces sound .

At first glance, this idea feels almost obvious. It made me question why more playgrounds are not designed in this way. If play is already based on movement, rhythm, and interaction, connecting it to sound seems like a natural extension. Yet, in most traditional playgrounds, this potential remains unexplored.

What I found particularly interesting is how the project reveals the relationship between playing and play. As the authors describe, both involve creative interaction within physical and social constraints . By making this connection explicit, the playground becomes more than just a physical space—it becomes an interactive, expressive environment.

Another aspect that stood out to me was that the playground was scaled for adults. This shift challenges the common assumption that playgrounds are only for children. Extending such experiences to adults opens up new possibilities for interaction, creativity, and social engagement. It suggests that play is not limited by age, but rather by how spaces are designed.

Overall, this project made me reflect on how small design interventions can unlock entirely new experiences. Even a simple addition like sound can make playgrounds more engaging, interactive, and meaningful. It also reinforces my interest in designing participatory and playful systems that invite users to actively shape their own experiences.

https://zenodo.org/records/1177685

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.

Kindergarten Taka-Tuka-Land, Berlin

A strong example of including children in the design process can be found in the work of Baupiloten, a Berlin-based architecture and design collective known for their participatory approach. Baupiloten involve children from the very early stages of design, especially in projects related to schools and playgrounds. Instead of relying on formal interviews or verbal explanations, they use playful and interactive methods such as drawing sessions, storytelling, role-playing, and model-making.

These activities allow children to express ideas through movement, imagination, and play rather than language alone. In this process, designers act as facilitators, creating situations where children’s experiences and perspectives can surface naturally. The insights gathered from these interactions directly influence design decisions, including spatial organization, atmosphere, and types of play supported by the environment.

Baupiloten’s approach demonstrates how interaction design methods can translate children’s playful expressions into meaningful design input. Their work shows that when children are treated as co-designers rather than passive users, the resulting spaces are more responsive to their needs and more supportive of creativity and exploration. This makes Baupiloten a relevant and inspiring example for exploring how interaction design can help include children in the playground design process, particularly within a German-speaking cultural context.

References

• Baupiloten. (n.d.). Participatory Architecture and Design Projects with Children. Berlin. https://www.baupiloten.com

After clarifying my research focus and framing playground design as a wicked problem, the next phase of my thesis will concentrate on practice-based research methods. These steps are intended to help me better understand how children can be meaningfully included in the playground design process through interaction design approaches.

One of the main steps will be conducting workshops with children. These workshops will use playful and interactive methods such as drawing, simple prototyping, storytelling, and role-playing. Rather than relying on verbal explanations, these activities aim to create spaces where children can express ideas through play, movement, and imagination. This approach aligns closely with interaction design principles and allows children to participate in ways that feel natural to them.

In addition to working with children, I plan to conduct interviews with parents. Parents play an important role in shaping children’s play experiences, especially through their views on safety, risk, and supervision. These interviews will help me understand adult perspectives and expectations surrounding playgrounds, and how they may influence design decisions.

Another key step will be on-site observations in playgrounds. By observing how children interact with existing play spaces, I aim to gain insights into their behavior, social interactions, and patterns of play. Observations will help ground my research in real-world contexts and reveal aspects of play that may not emerge through workshops or interviews alone.

Alongside these practical methods, I will continue my literature review throughout the research process. Revisiting existing theories, case studies, and design frameworks will allow me to reflect on my findings and situate them within a broader academic context. This ongoing dialogue between theory and practice is essential for developing a well-rounded and reflective thesis.

Together, these steps represent an iterative and exploratory research journey. Rather than following a fixed path, the process will remain flexible, allowing insights from each phase to inform the next. This approach reflects both the complexity of playground design and the values of interaction design, where learning emerges through engagement, reflection, and participation.

If playgrounds are meant for children, an important question arises: how can children be meaningfully included in the design process itself? This is where interaction design plays a crucial role.

Interaction design focuses not only on outcomes, but on processes, experiences, and relationships. It is concerned with how people interact with systems, spaces, and each other. When applied to playground design, interaction design offers tools and methods that make participation possible—especially for children, who may not be able to express their ideas through conventional verbal or written means.
Children communicate through play, movement, drawing, and storytelling. Workshops that include playful activities, role-playing, prototyping with simple materials, or drawing exercises allow children to express their thoughts in ways that feel natural to them. Instead of asking children to explain what they want in abstract terms, interaction design creates situations where ideas emerge through action.

Figure 1

By creating playful, inclusive, and flexible design processes, interaction design makes children’s participation more accessible and meaningful. It acknowledges that children are experts in their own experiences and that their perspectives can enrich the design of playgrounds in ways adults alone cannot achieve. In this sense, interaction design is not just a method, but a bridge—connecting children’s ways of thinking with the structured demands of the design process.

References

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.r.

Brown, D. M. Y., Ross, T., Leo, J., Buliung, R. N., Shirazipour, C. H., Latimer-Cheung, A. E., & Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K. P. (2021). A Scoping Review of Evidence-Informed Recommendations for Designing Inclusive Playgrounds. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 2, 664595.

Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and Expanded Edition). New York: Basic Books.

Nicholson, S. (1971). How NOT to Cheat Children: The Theory of Loose Parts. Landscape Architecture, 62(1), 30–34.

Playground design is a wicked problem shaped by cultural values, safety expectations, and deeply rooted ideas about childhood. What children need from play differs significantly across societies, as attitudes toward risk, independence, and learning are influenced by social norms and educational systems. This makes it difficult—if not impossible—to design a universal playground that fits all cultural and social contexts.

Recognizing this complexity led me to reflect on the scope of my research and the importance of context. Rather than attempting to address playground design on a global level, I decided to narrow my focus to German-speaking countries, where shared cultural attitudes toward play, education, and risk-taking provide a more coherent framework for investigation. This shift allows for a deeper and more meaningful exploration of design practices within a specific cultural setting.

By moving from a broad, global perspective to a more contextual one, I aim to better understand how interaction design can support the meaningful inclusion of children in the playground design process. Focusing on a defined cultural context not only makes the research more manageable, but also strengthens its relevance, enabling insights that are grounded, reflective, and transferable to similar contexts.

Since, I want to focus more on the design process of playgrounds. While doing so, I have come across several definitions that are closely related to one another, such as co-creation, participatory research, co-design, and participatory design. In today’s post, I will talk about these concepts and explore how they connect to my research topic.

Participatory design is one of the earliest of these approaches and has its roots in democratic design movements. Its core idea is that users should actively participate in the design process, especially when the outcomes directly affect their lives. In the context of playgrounds, this means involving children not just as users, but as contributors whose experiences and perspectives matter. However, participation does not always imply equal power; designers often still guide decisions and structure the process.

Co-design is closely related but places stronger emphasis on collaboration. In co-design, designers and users work together as partners during specific phases of the design process, such as ideation or prototyping. Rather than designing for users, designers create with them. When applied to playground design, co-design can take the form of workshops, drawing sessions, or playful activities where children help shape ideas for play environments.

Co-creation is a broader term that describes collective creativity shared by designers and non-designers across the entire process. Unlike co-design, which often refers to concrete design activities, co-creation can include generating ideas, defining problems, and imagining futures together. In this sense, co-creation is more of a mindset than a method, emphasizing shared ownership and creativity.

Participatory research, on the other hand, focuses more on how knowledge is produced rather than on design outcomes. It aims to include participants—such as children, parents, or educators—not only as subjects but as contributors to the research itself. This approach is particularly relevant when trying to understand children’s experiences of play, as it values their voices as a source of insight rather than data to be interpreted solely by adults.

References

Morrow, J. (2019). Co-creation, participatory research, co-design or participatory design — which is it? Medium.
https://medium.com/@Josh.Morrow.1/co-creation-participatory-research-co-design-or-participatory-design-which-is-it-fa14a7f542c1

UX Collective. (2018). The difference between co-design and participatory design.
https://uxdesign.cc/difference-between-co-design-participatory-design-df4376666816