Made in collaboration with Zoe Escalona and Courtney Smith
The overall concept of the pocket childhood kits is to give adults a brief escape from their lives by providing a mini nostalgic activity. Below we have detailed the contents of and decisions we made about each box.
Lego Kit
When initially ideating Pocket Childhood, we knew that we wanted to have a building concept. We thought of three different versions of this: mosaics, a Lite-Brite type toy, and Legos. All of these ideas had positives and negatives. Legos were chosen because of several reasons. First, they were easily accessible and had the nostalgia of childhood that we were aiming for. They also engaged in 3D building, rather than the 2D perspective that mosaics would offer. Legos were also less complicated than a Lite-Brite system, in which some sort of lighting would have to integrated into the kits.
Our intention with the Lego kit was to give people a mini version of the large Lego kits they may have built as children and the creativity and problem solving that went with that. This was the only kit that ended up having contents on the outside with the 3D printed platform to build on top of. The Legos inside were carefully selected to fit well inside the kit and provide a wide enough range of pieces to let people effectively play.
Slime Kit
The slime kit was inspired by recent trends (e.g. the popularity of slime and fidget toys), along with introducing a tactile activity to the kits. Playing with slime also takes less mental effort than the other, more creative, kits. We wanted to include several times of slime (during ideation this number ranged from two to four) in order to have different tactile experiences with the kit. One of the major challenges with this kit is the creation of the slime itself and the need to keep the slime in air tight containers.
Friendship Bracelet Kit
The intention of this kit was to give the user an arts and craft activity and a permanent creation. The friendship bracelet kit contains a variety of threads and beads with which to make the classic braided friendship bracelets. A problem that we found with making friendship bracelets is that a secure way to hold them for tension while braiding is necessary. As a solution to this we also included attached clips to hold works in progress. As friendship bracelet making is something that requires some teaching to begin, instructions on how to make a variety of bracelet styles is part of the companion app.
Playdough Kit
We knew that we wanted to prototype a kit that combined tactile sensations with the the creativity of making something. We ideated both playdough and kinetic sand as strong potential options. Playdough was eventually selected because we thought that it would create less of a mess and had a stronger sense of nostalgia than the alternatives. The kit would include a small amount of playdough and several accessories (cookie cutters, etc.) to optimize play.
Branding
We wanted the kits to be reminiscent of old tin lunch boxes. This is one of the reasons that we ideated handles and the rectangular shape. In addition, we were also inspired by older Polly Pocket toys (pictured to the right), which were portable play kits. Combined, these two ideas gave our product a sense of nostalgia.
We also wanted our product to have a bright color scheme and sense of playfulness with its design. This is relevant both to the appearance of the pocket kits and their contents.
Goals
Our product goal was to create a set of physical kits that are based on the childhood toys, nostalgia, and trends. These pocket kits aim to bring a little bit of uncomplicated, childhood joy into busy adult lives. Our user group was young professionals and college students who are stressed out and have limited time to escape from their adult lives. We also wanted to create an alternative “workday break” that did not consist of playing mobile games or scrolling through social media on their phones.
The goals of this prototype were to help determine the viability of our product line through evaluation of the feasibility, usability, and desirability of the Pocket Childhood Kits. Specifically, we aimed to answer the following questions:
Do people want Pocket Childhood Kits?
Are these effective at providing users with a fun and relaxing time?
Is it possible to create a kit small enough to be easily carried with users and still provide the fun and relaxation that the full size activities did?
Feasibility would be tested through the creation of the kits themselves, while usability and desirability would be evaluated through informal user testing.
Implementation
We implemented our prototype using multiple methods. The variety of methods helped us make design decision while iterating on Pocket Childhood, along with the creation of a testable prototype. These included paper prototyping, 3D printing, laser cutting, and wireframing, among others. Each of these methods is detailed below, along with what aspects of Pocket Childhood used them.
Paper Prototyping
The paper prototyping allowed us to determine what box size and layout would be most ideal for our pocket kits. To do the paper prototypes we grabbed some construction paper, tape, scissors and rulers and started cutting things out. This was a rapid fire process of making a paper box and then as a group discussing its merits and disadvantages. Through a few iterations we determined that a 3x4x2 box would be our ideal size. Having determined that we made a more sturdy version out of cardboard to evaluate how the size and shape of the box worked with the contents we had already prototyped or obtained.
3D Printing
Several aspects of the kits were prototyped using 3D printing: The initial box design and contents for various kits. They are described in greater detail below.
Box and Handle Prototype
Initially we were going to make our high fidelity box prototype by 3D printing it. We designed a box with built in latches and did a mini test print that worked perfectly. After we printed the first full scale version we realized that our built in latch design did not work at that scale and that with the time it took to print, about 8 to 9 hours, we didn’t have the time to iterate on the design. In addition it was difficult to get a design onto the printer as there were many other people working to print projects at the same time. These two factors lead to our decision to create our boxes with laser cutting instead. We did still 3D print the boxes handles, as those designs worked very well and printed on a much shorter time scale.
3D Printing Contents
Some of the contents of the kits were tested using 3D printing. These included the base plate for the Lego kit and accessories for the playdough kit.
The Lego baseplate was modified from a model found on Thingiverse. Legos have a very small tolerance for error and if they are the slightest bit off they do not stay together. The size we needed to fit onto the box was not one available from lego, and rather than dedicating the time to perfecting our own design we found a number of different existing files and printed them to see which fit best with the real Legos.
The accessories for the playdough kit included a series a cookie cutters in simple shapes and a rolling pin that was modeled via a simple cylinder. These accessories were to demonstrate a proof of concept, so the designs are quite simple. They did not go through any iteration for a final prototype, with the exception of reprinting when the cookie cutters were initially scaled incorrectly.
Laser Cutting
As said above, laser cutting was not originally intended to be as major a part of the project as it ended up being. Due to time constraints and the number of people using the 3D printers we realized that it would not be possible to iterate on the boxes in the way we wanted to in order to perfect the design. This was because each of the 3D printed boxes took 8-16 hours to print. To shorten the iteration, we decided to pivot and, instead, laser cut the boxes out of wood. We created the design to the same dimensions that the original box had been and included the holes to attach the handle. So the edges would fit securely together they had inverse cut outs and the entire thing folded together and was secured using tape.
In addition to laser cutting the boxes, the insert for the friendship bracelet kit was also laser cut out of acrylic and mat board. We needed a way to hold the thread neatly inside the box and not get tangled. To wrap the thread we designed flat bobbins and to hold the bobbins we created a slot system. The first iteration of this was very simple and did the job, but with a second iteration we were able to integrate a way to hook on the clasps to hold projects in work.
Interactive Prototype
The interactive prototype was created as a companion app to the pocket childhood kits. Some of the kit contents, such as the friendship bracelet making kit and the lego kit, either require or would benefit from the inclusion of an instruction manual. Due to the small size of the box and that these manuals might only be used on the first few uses we decided to make the manuals accessible via an app, rather than making a small manual that would fit inside the kit. We were initially hesitant to make an app because we were aiming to have people on their phones less during their break time, but we decided that the pros outweigh the cons.
The app itself is a basic format but we made a number of decisions that tailored it to the needs of a companion app for the pocket childhood kits. First we choose a bright, primary colored color scheme to reflect the youthful fun we were aiming for in our prototype. We choose to have the app formatted to only show the instructions for the kits the user loads into it (by scanning the physical kit) to keep it uncluttered and easy for the user to find what they are looking for. This decision was also made in picturing this as a companion app for a possible large line of kits, and not wanting to make users scroll for ages to find what they need. The interactive prototype can be accessed online here.
Other Prototyping
In addition to the four above methods of prototyping, we also conducted prototyping of the contents of and branding of each kit.
Contents Prototyping
The main contents prototyping of the kit was the creation of slime. The main ingredients of slime are water, glue, and borax. Different types of slime can be made using various mix-ins, including: shaving cream, lotion, foaming hand soap, foam beads, paint, clay, and more. These mix-ins can change the texture, scent, and playability of the slime.
Slime prototyping was completed by creating and testing many different types of slime. To find recipes we searched for ones online and also watched video tutorials. One of the challenges to creating the slime was that the videos and recipes were not very specific. Instead of listing amounts of each mix in or ingredient they would write, “Add some shaving cream” or “Add foam beads until the slime is the right consistency.” This made the creation of the slimes a lot of trial and error.
We made five main types of slime: normal, butter (which has clay to make it more spreadable), cloud (which has instant snow for texture), foam (which has foam beads), and fluffy (which has shaving cream). Several of our slimes went through several iterations in order to improve them - this included a second version of both the butter and floam slimes. We also experimented with paint and glitter to add color to them. These slimes would be evaluated using informal user testing to see which slimes left the least residue, were the most fun/relaxing to play with, and, ultimately, which two slimes to put in our final prototype.
Contents of other kits were also briefly prototyped. These included whether to include flat spools or round spools of thread in the friendship bracelet kit, and the amount/size of the Legos in the lego kit.
Branding Prototyping
We prototyped what branding for the Pocket Childhood kits would look like in several ways.
First, we created a logo that represented the brand. It was a lunch box icon in bright, primary colors. This logo was then translated to black and white to create vinyl stickers that could be affixed to each box. The logo had to be changed in several ways, since the vinyl cutter uses vector lines to trace the design, and many parts of the logo had been creating using stroke widths and outline colors instead of individual shapes. The choice to vinyl cut logos was a last minute choice to explore the vinyl cutter and to make our kits more cohesive. The black logo deviates from our established color scheme, but we were constrained with the scraps of vinyl that were already in the Makerspace, since this was an unplanned addition to our prototypes.
As in our original idea, the shapes of the kits were reminiscent of tin lunch boxes. To add to the playfulness of each kit we replaced certain wood sides with translucent, colored acrylic. These bright windows showed a sneak peak of what was inside each kit and also added a pop of color. In addition to this, the contents of each kits also reflected this bright color scheme (from bright pink playdough to yellow and orange slime).
Video Prototype/Promotion
The final step of our prototyping of Pocket Childhood was to create a hybrid video promotion and process video to communicate our idea. This video explained the concept, showed an overview of our process, displayed our final prototype, and briefly hinted at our testing process. It was created using a mix of clips taken during the prototype creation process and clips specifically shot to advertise the final prototype. The full video can be viewed here.
Team Roles
The following outlines how we divided the roles to complete the prototype of the Pocket Childhood Kits:
Zoe Escalona
Paper Prototyping
Contents Prototyping
Vinyl Cutting
Sierramatice Karras
Paper Prototyping
Laser Cutting
Interactive Prototyping
Courtney Smith
3D Printing
Video
Evaluation
There were two main stages of evaluation for the Pocket Childhood Kit prototypes. We first tested the contents of the kits as we were building them, through both self and user evaluation. We then had users evaluate the completed kits. Additionally, further evaluation was completed during the final class exhibit, in which we collected feedback on sticky notes from our colleagues.
Contents Testing
Before evaluating the kits themselves, we had to narrow down and iterate on the contents. One of our biggest questions was which types of slime would be most appropriate for kit. We tested about six different types of slime: stiff, floam, butter, cloud, cloud creme, and fluffy. The floam, cloud creme, and butter slimes went through two iterations each to try to accomplish a better consistency.
Slimes were tested on participants by having them play with each type of slime while using Think Aloud protocol. Additionally, each participant was asked a post-test question in which they ranked the slimes from their most favorite to least favorite.
Overall, we found that different slimes sparked different people’s interests. For example, one participant thought that glitter was too messy, while another liked how the aesthetic of the glitter in the slime. We also found that our slime prototypes were inconsistent in their quality. This was the first time we had ever made slime and some of our samples were either very moist and sticky.
The two slimes that we placed into our final prototype of Pocket Childhood were the first version of the floam slime and the second iteration of the butter slime. These were chosen based on user feedback. The two slimes had different textures, which led to different tactile experiences while playing with the two. They also left the least amount of residue on participant’s hands, which was important for young professionals who were supposed to be able to use the kits during lunch or a quick break.
In addition to testing slime, the contents of the other kits were also iterated on. For the Lego kit we decided early on in the process that a cohesive color scheme would be a nice feature to have for users to more easily build a cohesive creation. By self evaluating different combinations of pieces we settled on a set of Lego pieces that we thought would allow users to be free and creative in their building while still easily fitting inside the box. With the friendship bracelet box we did self evaluation on the first iteration of the internal organization system to create a more function multipurpose insert for the box, and for the playdough box through self evaluation we determined the best size of cookie cutter and the need to include a miniature rolling pin.
User Testing of Pocket Childhood
Once the contents of the Pocket Childhood kits was tested, we then tested the experience of playing with the kits themselves. To do this we recruited from our peers, who fell right into our target audience. The process we used for this testing was to line up all of the pocket childhood kits and ask the user to play with each one for a few minutes while thinking aloud. After they had played with each box we asked them to order the boxes from favorite to least favorite and tell us why that had picked the order that they did. Unlike the slime testing where there were clear overall favorites, each participant had their own unique ranking and gave much different reasons for them. One participant loved the slime kit because of the tactile stimulus it gave her, and ended up taking home some of the slime after the showcase. Another participant's favorite box was the friendship bracelet making kit because she could see herself using it between classes. Our third participant was excited by the Lego kit and used the wheel pieces to turn the box itself into a car (pictures above). During the showcase, the people coming to our table each had a different kit they were the most drawn to as well.
Analysis
Overall our prototype was effective. We were able to effectively test if our product was desirable, usable and feasible. By creating the kits we were able to show that the concept was feasible, even though our original plan of 3D printing was not feasible in the rapid timeline of this project.
Through our informal testing we saw evidence that people enjoyed the kits, and they reported that they would use them (or asked for one after the showcase was over). We would like to continue evaluating these kits, especially in a more formal interview setting, or going out into the field to find people on break from work or class to test with. We also found that we were correct in thinking that a product line would be an effective design choice, as there was a wide variety in which kits users prefered.
Some failings of our prototypes include durability, which we address in future plans. This lack of durability also made it difficult to test the usability of the kits in a space other than the MakerSpace, and we were unable to evaluate the ability to easily transport the kits. The 3D printed handles for the kits were a failed print, and they didn’t finish printing. We used them anyways due to the time constraints of the project. Another downside of the final prototype was the slime. We had made the slime several days before the showcase, and because of the warmth of the Makerspace it had melted and needed to be reactivated while presenting to reduce stickiness.
Future Work
If we were to continue to iterate on the Pocket Childhood Kit prototypes, there are several steps that we would take.
First, the boxes did not have any front clasps and were only held closed by tape. In addition to this, the hinges were hot-glued onto the kits because the wood was too thin to use screws. This caused the boxes to not be the most structurally sound. We know that clasps are purchasable, but we could find none in person and the online options were not going to get to us in time. Future iterations could add more structural integrity by being glued (rather than taped) together, along with installing hinges and clasps properly. The final version of the product may even use tin boxes to further be thematic to a lunch box.
There could also be further iteration on the contents of the kits themselves. This could include seeing what specific legos sparked the most creativity and how to best format the lego bases on the outside of the box, continuing to iterate on slimes (including adding different scents), and creating different cookie cutters for the playdough kit. Additionally, there could be testing on other types of arts and crafts projects to find which ones are the most ideal for the kits. Friendship bracelets was chosen because of previous knowledge of the subject, and the ease of obtaining the supplies.
More research could be done into potential user groups as well. A user group that we had not been thinking about during our prototyping but that expressed interest in our concept at the showcase was parents and children. A number of people at the showcase were parents and expressed that they would like a kit like these to entertain their children while out and about. We had created miniature versions of toys for adults to play with on the go, but they were still children’s toys and thus would also work as toys for kids to play with at restaurants or waiting for appointments.
Finally, future work on the product could include ideating and prototyping additional kits in the Pocket Childhood line. We only choose four different types of kits for this project, but there could be a multitude more.
Comments