EDITOR Allison Druin allisond@umiacs.umd.edu

Technology has changed. In 1997 the iPod had not been invented, the Internet was primarily dialup, the phone tended to have a cable attached. “Mobile computing” referred to heavy laptops, ubiquitous computing was still not much more than an idea, and RFID technology was restricted to cows’ ears! Many new technologies cannot be easily evaluated in usability labs and as technology has changed, usability is no longer the only attribute of interest. There is now a much greater emphasis on fun, desirability, and user experience.

Social changes. The world now feels much smaller than it was. Online communication has grown— children now communicate effortlessly online in social networks and chat online in much the same way as they do face to face. Schools now emphasize collaboration with online learning environments, and children play online computer games with other children they will never meet. In these contexts, evaluations of interactive technology need to take account of children working together, over time and across locations. The lone child at a computer is becoming a rarity.

Political changes. No longer can children be regarded simply as subjects in user tests. Changes in legislation and in children’s roles in communities mean that they now have greater social capital than ever before. Children expect to be included in the design of their worlds; they certainly know about technology and have a lot to say. When looking at interactive technology with children, this confidence can unnerve the less savvy evaluator. Twenty-first-century evaluators need to ensure that children’s rights are observed while also giving them a voice.

New evaluation methods. As would be expected, the past 10 years have seen research into the use and usability of different evaluation methods with children. Notable examples are methods like peer tutoring [ 3], studies that validate existing methods [ 4, 5], and studies that create and validate new tools for use with children [ 6]. In planning an evaluation, as in all work with interactive technology and children, we need to take note of what is already known—failing to learn from the research of others can often result in a poor experience for children.

Giving the Original Guidelines a Makeover The original guidelines are essentially still highly relevant because, after all, a child is still a child. However, there are three areas where it appears, in the light of the changing times, that some adjust-

ment is needed: these are timing, screening, and participation. Also, as there is now new knowledge about interactive technology and children, there are some additional guidelines to be aware of.

In the original work, the researchers held usability tests between 30 minutes and an hour long. In our experience, and that of many others, this now seems rather liberal. Maybe children have shorter attention spans than they used to, but modern young children can often concentrate for only very short periods—as short as 10 minutes—and even older children find sessions beyond 30 minutes problematic. A good rule is to keep evaluations as brief as possible. It is possible, with short breaks and a sufficiently engaging product (maybe a game), to keep children for longer, but this is more of an exception than a recommendation.

The screening of children for participation in evaluations of interactive products might be a necessary evil in the time-poor world of commercial usability testing (in which you really might not want children who cannot read), but in a world where equality and inclusion are center stage, as many children as possible should be allowed to join evaluations, even if their contribution might not be useful to the researcher or test administrator. Nowadays, the mantra should be, “the child’s experience matters as much as the evaluators’ results!”

In designing for the child’s interactive experience, whereas Hanna, Risden et al. advocated keeping a parent or adult with the child, it is more common these days to have children paired with a friend (which after all is what generally happens in the real world when the children are using interactive technology), with the parent playing a more disconnected role. At the same time it is necessary, in an era of litigation and concerns for the safety of children, to warn against any situation that places a single tester in a room with a single child.