Have you ever imagined of a playground where children can explore imagine and learn through play ? Traditional playgrounds are often designed by adults and not by children. I am interested in play based interaction- driven methods that allows children to participate as co-designers.
Play is essential for children’s development like social skills, cognitive abilities and physical health. Interaction design can help include children in the design process of playgrounds. I believe children should have more saying in a place where it is only for them and not for adults.
Most playgrounds are designed by adults, based on safety standards, budgets, and assumptions about children. As a result, they often become predictable, restrictive, and sometimes even boring.
From a child’s perspective, the challenges are different:
Not enough freedom or space
Too many rules
Feeling excluded or not heard
Limited opportunities to explore or discover
Playgrounds are supposed to be spaces of joy, but they often fail to reflect what children actually want: freedom, creativity, and a sense of ownership.
Why should we care?
This matters because playgrounds are not just physical spaces—they are environments where children develop socially, emotionally, and creatively.
When children are not included:
They spend less time in these spaces
They feel less connected to them
Their needs and ideas are overlooked
But when they are included, something shifts. Playgrounds become more engaging, more meaningful, and more used. They stop being just “installed structures” and start becoming lived experiences.
What is the solution and how does it work?
My approach is to introduce participatory design methods, especially through workshops with children.
Instead of asking children to adapt to a finished design, the process invites them to:
Express ideas through drawing, storytelling, and play
Share feelings about existing playgrounds
Imagine new possibilities
These workshops act as tools that translate children’s thoughts into design input. At the same time, the process still considers real-world constraints like safety regulations and feasibility.
So the solution is not a single playground design—but rather a design process: → one that creates space for children to be heard → one that balances creativity with structure
Who is the target audience?
The primary “users” are children, but the system involves multiple stakeholders:
Designers and urban planners
Schools (as collaborators)
Parents and caregivers
Municipalities
In this sense, children are both participants and beneficiaries, while institutions act as enablers of the process.
What is going to happen? (Change & Impact)
If children are included in the design process:
Before:
Playgrounds are standardized and repetitive
Children feel disconnected
Design decisions are top-down
After:
Playgrounds become more diverse and engaging
Children feel ownership and belonging
Spaces are used more actively
Bonus: How could this create value?
This approach could evolve into a service or framework:
Workshops organized with schools and municipalities
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.
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.
As my research focuses on how interaction design can help include children in the playground design process, I created three low-fidelity prototypes that explore different ways children might express their ideas, feelings, and experiences related to playgrounds.
Rather than designing a playground itself, the goal of these prototypes was to design methods of participation. Each prototype approaches the design process from a slightly different perspective: materials and elements of play, emotional experiences, and spatial interactions within playground environments.
Prototype 1: Playground Idea Cards
The first prototype is a simple card-based toolkit designed to help children communicate their playground ideas through categories. The cards are grouped into three themes: materials and elements, types of play, and feelings. For example, materials might include elements such as wood, sand, or water, while play cards might refer to activities like climbing, sliding, or jumping.
Children can select and combine cards to describe what kind of playground they imagine. This format allows them to build ideas visually rather than relying only on verbal explanations. The simplicity of the cards makes them flexible and easy to use in workshops, where children can rearrange, group, or expand the combinations while discussing their ideas.
Prototype 2: Playground Reflection Sheet
The second prototype takes a more reflective approach. It consists of a large sheet that asks children three questions about playground experiences. The first question asks how children feel on playgrounds, which they can answer by choosing emotion stickers. The following questions invite children to describe how they usually play and how they would like to play, using drawings or written responses.
This structure allows children to express themselves through multiple modes of communication. Some children may prefer stickers, while others may choose drawing or storytelling. By combining emotional responses with descriptive answers, this prototype helps reveal not only what children do in playgrounds but also how they experience those spaces.
Prototype 3: Mapping the Playground
The third prototype focuses on spatial interaction. In this activity, children are given a simple drawing of a playground that includes common elements such as slides, swings, or climbing structures. Children are then invited to place stickers on different parts of the playground to indicate how they feel about those elements.
Through this mapping activity, children can visually communicate which areas they enjoy, which spaces they find exciting, or which ones they might avoid. This approach transforms the playground into a map of experiences rather than just a collection of equipment.
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.
