Re: [kidsUI] Browser example

["Ken Kahn" <kenkahn@toontalk.com>]

Hi all.

I agree with Sanjay that animated characters are the way to go. I would
primarily look at game technology and only secondarily at the CHI stuff. CHI
tends to be more conservation. And game developers only do things that work
for large audiences including kids. Think about the characters in a game
like Nintendo's Zelda - they help you learn about the world and help you do
things. And kids spends many hours in such games just for the fun of it.
I've been building ToonTalk (www.toontalk.com) which takes game ideas and
applies them to providing a programming system for kids. The kids program
from inside of an animated world using animated characters. The same ideas
should apply at the level of an operating system.

But one does need to understand what went wrong with Microsoft Bob. That was
an attempt to provide an "agent" interface to the computer. It has some good
ideas and parts but it failed miserably despite a big marketing effort from
Microsoft.

Best,

-ken kahn

----- Original Message -----
From: Sanjay Chandrasekharan <schandr2@chat.carleton.ca>
To: <kidsui@seul.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 4:14 PM
Subject: [kidsUI] Browser example


> Hi all,
>
> Here's the example I suggested. I didn't know about Surfmonkey when I
suggested it.
> I don't know how many schools buy Surfmonkey, though! :-) I know that this
takes us
> a bit away from our discussion on kid UIs for Linux, but I'm making a
general point
> here, that contrary to what Shneiderman says, Agent Interfaces make sense.
>
> And I think it makes a lot of sense in the case of Linux, because Linux
comes with
> a character, the penguin!
> >
> >
> >
> Here's something I thought up to illustrate why Agents is a good
> way of doing business.
>
> Suppose Netscape incorporates a smut-filtering program like the
> Net-Nanny into their browser, and creates a Mozilla for kids. Also
> suppose that the kiddie version has an animated interface with
> cartoon characters for everything. What do you think will happen?
>
> Here's what I think. I think every school will buy it! I also think most
> families will buy it. That's a BIG market!
>
> Now, let's try to analyse this. What functionality does this product
> provide? Interestingly, quite a bit! First, obviously the browser keeps
> smut out of kids way through the built-in Nanny. Second -- this is the
> interesting part -- it keeps kids out of businesses' way! A Mozilla for
> kids means browser-aware sites can block out anyone who is using the
> kiddie browser! That will keep sonny away from not only smut, but
> gambling, high-value credit-card transactions and a lot of other stuff
> as well. So there is functionality in creating age-specific browsers!
>
> Now, why does this product need an Agent-interface? Can't Netscape
> incorporate Nanny into their one-size-fits-all version and declare it a
> kiddy Mozilla? Well, it can. But someone somewhere (Disney, Pixar?) will
> soon come out with an animated interface and make Netscape look like
> Microsoft.
> >
> >
> >
> Sanjay
>
> -------------------------------------
> Sanjay Chandrasekharan,
> Ph.D Student (Cognitive Science),
> Carleton University,
> Ottawa, Ontario,
> Canada K1S 5B6
> Phone: 520-2600 ext 1568
>
> http://wabakimi.carleton.ca/~schandr2
>
>
>