ASOBI

Play in every language

Play in every language - A graduate thesis

ROLE

Graduate Thesis

TIMELINE

12 Weeks

DELIVERABLE

Functional Prototype

The Modern Toy Industry

The modern toy industry is struggling to engage children in meaningful play and screens have filled the void. Media franchising is dominating the industry with over a third of the US market consisting of brands that prioritize sensorial stimulation and eye catching designs. Products are limited in scope and restrict creativity to encourage high product turnover by pushing the 'next big thing'.

Higher product turnover may be appealing from a business strategy, yet it quickly leads to a sense of overstimulation at home. Studies have linked higher quantities of toys in the home to negative developmental outcomes, an all too likely occurrence when bad toys lose their appeal quickly.

The "IKEA Effect" may help revitalize the toy industry, capitalizing on the cognitive theory that individuals place disproportionally higher value on products they have partially created themselves. Research consistently demonstrated that participants assigned significantly higher monetary and affective value to self-assembled objects compared to identical pre-assembled versions.

Taking from education models like Montessori, Waldorf, and Magda Gerber, new toys can encourage natural curiosity in a safe environment (Waldorf) while allowing for varying levels of complexity that scale with age (Montessori) all with the foundation of manipulating concrete materials (Magda Gerber).

Progressive Design

By designing a product or system in a way that allows the user to dictate the scope of play and manipulate the world around them, toys can take on a new, more sustainable life, breaking down existing standards and limitations of the toy industry through productive play.

The first of these systems (above) is inspired by the functionality of a popular construction toy called Lincoln Logs. Based on the assembly methods of log cabins, Lincoln Logs used a basic slotting technique to assemble simple and recognizable structures. An early model of the first system showed promise in vertical construction and prompted a need to think laterally, hence the connector pieces.

The second of these systems (below) incorporated a more abstract and three dimensional element largely in part due to the geometric forms. Early versions of this system sought to utilize a sliding attachment method via a male/female interference fit, but by happy accident the same pieces allowed for a snapping mechanic. The snapping turned out to be simpler for assembly and, in large part due to the great sound that it would make, significantly more satisfying.

Putting It All Together

The previous forms served as a launching point for defining the target age group of the final design. The snapping mechanism of system 2 presented issues for individuals with limited dexterity. This applied to older individuals with reduced motor skills but also younger children that lack the hand strength needed.

Thus the third system sought to maintain the redeeming elements of the previous concepts while fine tuning the overall design to suit children of all ages and enable quality play without as many barriers.

Much of the inspiration for this system came from another popular toy with a less creative purpose, marble runs. Despite their limited scope of play, the overall form enables the easy snapping together of pieces, hence why this new system innovates on the concept. Early versions, as shown above, explored arch and wall-like structures, ultimately blending the two to produce something akin to a bridge form.

This form enables the construction of intriguing geometric forms and the tolerancing of the snap points enable a unique rotation that can create movement within a structure. Play testing revealed this movement component and encouraged a push towards additional units within the system.

The simplicity of the basic form lends itself to a smaller unit, something to represent one or a single node. The result of this exploration is a single piece without the bridge, just the connection point, shown as the fifth piece in the image below.

Having smaller components enables breaks in geometric patterns, something to mix up the repetitive form of the same structure attached to the same structure. Further iterations of the original unit led to a flat piece, a wall-like piece, and a piece of half the original length, see left graphic.

These new forms created opportunities for dynamic structures that take on more than the original shape and become a cohesive visual assembly. In play testing the expanded set with children younger than 10 years of age, users were able to create more diverse and expansive structures with unique geometric patterns both horizontally and vertically.

A recurring desire, however, was to change the axis of construction. The current snapping mechanism enabled one direction of attachment, whereas adding a unit, see the bottom of left graphic, could enable snapping to the side profile of a piece.

Feedback across the three design concepts indicated each was viable but routinely exhibited a strong preference towards Concept 3. The first design fell flat in the fact that the components were uninspiring and basic, likely in part due to the limitations of using planes. The second design showed great promise in that the overall versatility and intrigue of the pieces was captivating. Users often enjoyed the abstract nature of the rhombus form.

The main limitations in this concept were the aforementioned dexterity requirement and an inability to mimic the design at different scales. The tolerancing for the snapping mechanism happened largely by accident and at a larger scale the materials used would not perform as intended to continue using this attachment style. The affinity for the third design is in large part due to the familiarity of each piece. When putting these pieces in front of a new user there is no need for instructions or a tutorial: the process is intuitive and familiar.

Establishing the System

Further play testing with an older age group presented a few areas of difficulty and highlighted several annoyances in the existing pieces. The first of these were acknowledgements that there needed to be a more defined relationship between each piece in all dimensions. The single unit could be broken into three smaller pieces that enable a more regimented ratio between the existing catalog. Upon creating the single short component, there was a natural shift towards creating variations of the original units as compressed versions as seen below.

The addition of these compressed forms rounded out the part catalog with 9 total components that established a robust system of construction. Each unit offers unique building opportunities, encouraging intentional play in a system that promotes creative exploration and physically safe risk taking.

Following the Waldorf principle of increasing complexity with age, it made sense to create a simplified version of the catalog that allows younger children to eventually age up into the current system.

Rather than oversimplifying the core concept, the logical step was to reduce cognitive load by lowering the fine motor skills required during assembly. Scaling the pieces up to 4x their original size achieves this while maintaining the proportional relationships of the design. This larger footprint expands the product beyond a handheld toy into dynamic applications like toddler furniture, bed frames, or self-constructed figures. For ages 1 to 5, the scaled-up modules serve as a world-building tool that helps children understand their environment, creating a natural pathway toward the smaller, more complex system rated for ages 4+. The primary challenge then becomes bridging the transition between the two scales.

With the emergence of now two separate age groups, there became a need to bridge between the two product lines. Manipulating one of the larger forms to act as a shell created an opportunity to package the small units within one of its larger counterparts.

Shown to the left, a complete kit of 27 individual units can be packaged into the frame of the large Triple #00069 pieces. Packaging within an existing product reduces the waste associated with the toy while providing the necessary transition from young to old by encouraging children towards the more complex version of the product. This concept can be used for larger and for smaller kits as well, utilizing Double #00039 or Single #00089 as shells to add more variety to the store shelf.

With the emergence of now two separate age groups, there became a need to bridge between the two product lines. Considering the small scale of the original toy, there should be some form of packaging that creates a kit of units for retail purposes that communicates the impacts of both variations in size. Manipulating one of the larger forms to act as a shell created an opportunity to package the small units within one of its larger counterparts.

Branding

The shell packaging design left significant space for graphics and branding on the exterior. While it would be easy to directly print graphics onto the shell itself, having any distracting imagery or text would detract from the usability of the packaging into the larger construction system.

Using a paper wrap instead ties in the lid and the main body while both minimizing waste product and maintaining the minimally distracting design of the system. In the process of developing a wrap to complete the packaging design, a name emerged for the system as a whole.

Following a similar trend used by toy giants that preceded it, the name for this product comes from the word Play in a foreign language. “Asobi”, or play in Japanese, is both punchy and thought provoking, and fits within the dimensions of a paper wrap in the flat center of the shell packaging.

Using a paper wrap instead ties in the lid and the main body while both minimizing waste product and maintaining the minimally distracting design of the system.

Moving beyond just a name, Asobi became the imagery associated with the product with the logo turning into a constructed title that spells the product name using the product itself, see below. Each letter is an assemblage of pieces from the part catalog and showcases the core color scheme of the product.

Using a paper wrap instead ties in the lid and the main body while both minimizing waste product and maintaining the minimally distracting design of the system.

Packaging

Integrating this construction logo into the wrapped packaging showcased the possibilities enabled by the product itself. To further highlight the functionality of Asobi, the wrap indicates the potential for creating a pivoting mechanism along the corners of the wrap, helping to physically turn the corner on the packaging. The orthographic views of each face of the shell incorporate the established color scheme and branding of the product while not engaging in overwhelming visual distractions.

Combining both the wrap and the shell packaging creates an intriguing visual identity for the brand and the product itself, see Figure 14. Sitting on the shelf the product stands apart from other construction toys not only in the form but in the functionality of the packaging as a broader piece in the large scale system.

User Testing

At Imagine RIT, an innovation fair at Rochester Institute of Technology, 130 children ranging from 1 to 16 engaged with Asobi in an open play testing environment. Both children and their parents were encouraged to participate in playing with the original scale Asobi system which resulted in a variety of insights into the success of the product.

130

PARTICIPANTS Ages 1-16

18.5 min

avg playtime per child

15 piece

AVG per build

<30 sec

Avg time before assembling two pieces

Throughout the day in which Asobi was tested, users showed minimal barriers to play in that it took an average of 30 seconds to assemble the first two pieces and no children became frustrated from having difficulty building. This play session resulted in an average play time of 18.5 minutes per child, a metric that suggests meaningful stimulation despite a fast-paced and highly distracting environment like a fair.

While each child had their own vision for Asobi, the average build required the use of 15 or more pieces, suggesting a need for kits that store more than the current 27 units. Figure 18 showcases several of the assemblies produced on the day, ranging from structures and anthropomorphic creatures to abstract interpretations of pieces. Every construction was unique in both its intent, the end result, and the process by which it was created. Every child that engaged with Asobi asked to have their project saved and not disassembled, suggesting a level of attachment that would draw them back to the toy again. With each of the statistics observed from this play testing opportunity, Asobi showcased potential, directly in line with the goals of the design intent and the research conducted.