{"id":337,"date":"2026-03-31T01:22:25","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T01:22:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/projects.etc.cmu.edu\/sokids\/?page_id=337"},"modified":"2026-04-21T15:41:28","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T15:41:28","slug":"sokids-week-10-devlog","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/projects.etc.cmu.edu\/sokids\/blog\/sokids-week-10-devlog\/","title":{"rendered":"SoKids \u2013 Week 10 Devlog"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Week 10 focused on a deeper evaluation and refinement of Prototype 2 through targeted playtesting and design discussions. We conducted another round of playtesting at the CMU Children\u2019s School, gathered more structured observations, and used those insights to guide iteration priorities. Alongside this, we received detailed feedback from Heather Kelley and held internal discussions between the design team to align on system design, interaction consistency, and data collection strategy. At the same time, we engaged in a guided co-writing session with Jessica Hammer, making significant progress on our research paper structure and framing. This week helped us better understand how children interpret tasks and how our design choices impact both usability and research outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"Playtesting Focus: Prototype 2<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This week\u2019s playtesting specifically focused on Prototype 2, allowing us to evaluate its full interaction flow and research potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The session revealed that while children were initially curious and engaged, their overall experience varied significantly. Some children repeated activities multiple times, showing curiosity and persistence, while others lost interest or felt the experience \u201cwasn\u2019t a real game.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A key insight was that many children created their own narratives to make sense of the experience, such as interpreting the scenario as a birthday party or inventing reasons for giving gifts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"Task Understanding & Gameplay Clarity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the most critical findings this week was that task understanding remains a major challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many children:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • Misinterpreted the purpose of tasks (e.g., cookies, gifts, sequencing)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Repeated actions without understanding the goal<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Completed tasks through trial-and-error rather than intention<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Additionally, children often hesitated between steps or asked \u201cwhat do I do next,\u201d indicating that our game flow lacks clear guidance and structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This suggests that, beyond interaction design, we need to strengthen the context and framing of the experience to help children understand why<\/em> they are performing each action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"Interaction & Navigation Challenges<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Consistent with previous weeks, interaction issues remained a key problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Drag-and-drop interactions were still not intuitive and were often discovered accidentally<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Children frequently clicked randomly or skipped steps, especially with navigation buttons<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • The overall flow felt non-linear and confusing, with children jumping between actions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      We also observed that some children attempted to interact with non-interactive elements, suggesting an expectation for a richer and more responsive environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      These findings reinforce the need for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • Clearer onboarding of interaction mechanics<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • More structured, step-by-step progression<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Stronger feedback systems to guide behavior<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"Advisor Feedback from Heather<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        \n