Weekly Assignment 2

• "Design For Play"

Compared to "designing toys," "design for play" is different by the word "play," which represents a kind of interaction between the toy and the user. For Cas Holman, toys should not have a fixed function or way of playing that is determined by the designer. Toys should be full of possibilities. Holman focuses on designing open-ended play experiences in order to foster creativity, problem-solving, and social interaction. "Design for Play" considers the environment, the user’s engagement, and the developmental impact of the experience.

I agree with Holman's "Design For Play" because it's about interaction, imagination, and exploration. In my definition of toys, toys are "playthings". Toys are not just for children, but I believe that those who play with them have a childlike heart. Anything can be played with, and all toys hold infinite possibilities. I think Holman's definition of toy aligns with mine, but it goes further beyond. Cas Holman defines a toy as something that encourages exploration and open-ended possibilities. Play is an active, creative process rather than a passive experience. She gives toys significance. 

• Play Value

In my opinion, Play Value refers to possibility of engagement that a toy may provide. High-play-value toys encourage imagination, problem-solving, skill-building, and creativity. For example, Holman’s design Rigamajig expects children to build, experiment, and invent on their own terms. In contrast, toys with low play value tend to be more fixed and limits interaction beyond their intended function. I think this concept has made me rethink my understanding of toys. In the past, I was mostly surrounded by toys with fixed ways of playing—such as plush, building blocks with detailed assembly instructions, and puzzles with fixed patterns. This makes me wonder, if I were a toy designer, how could I make a toy more playful rather than static and unchanging?