I recently came across two complementary takes on the interrelation of play and design.
Hank Williams at the Why Does Everything Suck? blog observes the following in his post Apple Has Learned The Importance of Play. We Should Too.:
I believe that a big part of the reason that Apple has been successful is that they figured out long ago that their products had to have the elements of joyful exploration that are the hallmarks of great toys. The concept of play is generally something associated with children, but I believe that that desire and that need never die. It is just muted by the expectations of adulthood.
The best example of this is my mother’s excitement about her new iPhone. …For her, the iPhone is hard enough to still present challenges, and yet easy enough that she can overcome them. And the payoffs are joyous. The sound, the animation, the smooth virtual physics are incredibly compelling and toy-like. But of course it is not a “toy” it is a phone. It has a real function so she could never be accused of “playing.”
In an interview entitled Paul Rand on the Play Instinct, the renowned graphic designer expounds on his view of play being integral to design. An excerpt:
Q: What is the play instinct?
A: It is the instinct for order, the need for rules that, if broken, spoil the game, create uncertainty and irresolution. “Play is tense,” says Johan Huizinga. “It is the element of tension and solution that governs all solitary games of skill.” Without play, there would be no Picasso. Without play, there is no experimentation. Experimentation is the quest for answers.
Both of these gents are reinforcing and eloquently supporting my contention that playfulness is not just something to be added to design or a design but is an inherent part of a good design process and a well-designed product, space, or experience. Given how ubiquitous technological elements are to nearly all design, thinking about playfulness and technology is… well, the entirety of my interest here.