Today I attended the lecture with Ylva Fernaeus. I think the lecture somewhat summed up the basic ideas of the concept that I read about in her (and her authors') paper. I can now in retrospect say that I still think the concept is somewhat "fuzzy". I think the problem lies with the fact that they use the word "programming" in context where I think it doesn't really make sense for me.
What I mean by this is that the products that were developed/modified during this research are not really "programmed" in the sense that the end user modify some sort of code. Instead the user can for example with the dinosaur, put on clothes, which in this case makes the dinosaur (or robot essentially) behave differently.
As I stated in my previous post I find this type of "programming" to be more of a modular interaction based on predefined actions. I say predefined because the robot is only modular to the extent to which the developer of the actual code have implemented the possible actions to be executed by the robot. I guess if I would try to see the underlying purpose for this concept, I imagine toys being more educational for children and let them think more about underlying features of the robot. This could in turn lead to children engage in more advanced technology at a younger age and make them aware of how things actually work "behind the scenes".
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar