KEYWORDS: Children, technology, design partners, contextual inquiry, participatory design, technology immersion, software development, KidPad, Pad++, intergenerational design teams

ABSTRACT: "That?s silly!" "I?m bored!" "I like that!" "Why do I have to do this?" "What is this for?" These are all important responses and questions that come from children. As our design partners in developing new technologies, children can offer bluntly h onest views of their world. They have their own likes, dislikes, and needs that are not the same as adults? (Druin, Stewart, Proft, Bederson, & Hollan, 1997). As the development of new technologies for children becomes commonplace in industry and univ ersity research labs, children?s input into the design and development process is critical. We need to establish new development methodologies that enable us to stop and listen, and learn to collaborate with children of all ages. In the chapter that follo ws, a discussion of new research methodologies will be presented.

INTRODUCTION: Today, an array of methodologies has been developed to observe and understand adults as users of technology. In general, these are used in a workplace environment where tasks are clearly defined for a required end-user product (Bjerknes, Ehn, & Kyng, 1987; Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1997; Holtzblatt & Jones, 1992; Holtzblatt & Jones, 1995; Holtzblatt & Beyer, 1997; Muller, 1991; Muller, Wildman, & White, 1994). The observation and participation methodologies of these experiences do not take into account the difficulty in studying the constantly changing interaction between children and technology. When children are given the chance to use technology in ways they would like, many times they do not have a defined task and their activ ities are open-ended and exploratory (Druin, 1996a) . Interestingly enough, the one environment for children that has typically been well-researched is the school environment (e.g., Collis & Carleer, 1992; Kay, 1996; Norton, 1992; Ringstaff, Sterns, Hanson, & Schneider, 1993; Tinker, 1993). We bel ieve that this has been the case because school activities lend themselves to the existing observation and participation methodologies. Schools are generally places where children are asked to carry out directed, adult-specified tasks. Children are typica lly not in control of when they can have art or what they can write about, even when they can go home. Ultimately, we believe that researchers can only tell so much about what children want or need in technologies from environments such as these. Therefor e, our research has primarily been focused on what happens with children and technology outside of the school environment. In the chapter that follows, the research methods which were developed and adapted for work with children are described. In addition, an example of how these methodologies have been used to develop a prototype drawing tool for children will also be dis cussed. This work is based upon a year and a half of frequent and intensive direct contact with children (Druin, Boltman, Miura, Platt, Uscher, & Knotts-Callahan, 1997). Hundreds of children were observed in a wide range of activities in diverse south western sites: from urban middle class homes, to isolated non-English speaking rural farmhouses, to an intensive 5-day technology camp experience at an international conference. These children varied in age (3-13 years old) as well as ethnic background (e .g., Native American, Hispanic, African American, Caucasian, and children of recent immigrants from Vietnam, China, and Korea).

CONCLUSION: Our work continues in developing and refining new research methodologies that are inclusive of children. Our work also continues in using the results of our field research in developing new technologies for children. We are trying to understand how we can bring our knowledge from the "real world" of children into the "design world" of technology development. The techniques we use in recording what we see with children, need to show a direct relationship to what we develop [See Table 4 as an example for KidPad]. It is our hope that one day the question, "Why did you design this?" won?t need to be said. It will be obvious based on the research results. Until that day, we need to continue to refine the research process with children for children, because ultimat ely our goal is simple: to create exciting, meaningful new technologies for children.