Reading Response 2  
In response to the Chapter 2 introduction about toys and play, I  
began thinking about the design of some of my most memorable  
childhood toys/games. The first was the Bop It, which required players  
to quickly respond to sound cue commands like “bop it,” “twist it,”  
“pull it,” etc. When I think back on what made this particular toy so  
enthralling, it was the silliness of the juxtaposition between hyper  
focus and aimless goofiness. Immense concentration was required to  
follow these instructions while the instructions themselves were to do  
absolutely useless actions that led to no greater outcome other than  
the game continuing. This chapter also got me thinking about a  
computer game called Bike or Die. The player controls a stick figure who  
bikes through a rather tumultuous low-res universe, where falling  
means imminent death! Bike or Die made a huge wave at my middle  
school, and many years later it sticks in my memory because of the  
amusing premise of having only two options with very unexpected  
stakes- bike or DIE!? While players often lose games by “dying,” the  
world is usually some sort of battleground, instead of a casual bike  
ride. What caught my attention as a fan of both the Bop It and Bike or  
Die was their simplicity combined with pure absurdity.  
Principal 2.4 talks about artfully blending the physical with the  
virtual. This makes me think about a UX feature of the MacBook that I  
find particularly pleasing. The mousepad responds differently to  
number-of-fingers touching while scrolling, so one touch controls  
mouse location, two touch controls scroll of foreground window, and  
three touch is a master view of all of the open windows/desktops. I  
think this is a particularly artful use of the human hand form, which has  
three central “longer fingers” that can gesturally work together or  
independently without much user thought. I’ve always personally felt  
that this was a more elegant design than the classic mouse. The classic  
mouse designates separate mechanical parts for page scroll/mouse  
movement verses a single pad which takes advantage of the user’s  
inherent separate parts.  
Principle 2.7 speaks about design as a means to lower inhibition. I  
do feel very “bonded” to both objects and software that bring out the  
playfulness of learning through engaging. The more time I have to  
spend looking at a manual rather than just poking around intuitively,  
the less connected I am to the experience. In tech this gets referred to  
as “UX friction,” but I was thinking about applying this concept to  
learning musical instruments. As a pianist/drummer, I always felt like  
these two instruments were particularly special because they both  
have no barrier to “first sound” entry. To play guitar you must build up  
finger strength for chords to ring without sounding muted; to play  
trumpet you need to learn the right embouchure for a sound to  
emerge. Pressing down a piano key and wacking a drum both have  
very little initial physical requirements, perhaps attracting me most to  
these two instruments.