I had plenty of ideas for the 2D physics exercise before reading Flanagan’s on critical play. Now, I’m a little strapped for ideas. Reading about her analysis was a good catalyst for self-reflection; all my ideas seemed like interesting bits of micro interactions afterwards.

In trying to break down and reflect on Flanagan’s points, I show how I think her points fit within/relate to my existing mental schema of “making” or “prototyping” —

— Namely that (in a somewhat reductionist diagram shown below), there are three distinct points that represent the different types of purposes/goals  behind a prototype. Prototypes of varying fidelity occupy different points in the area of that triangle.


my previous mental model of ‘prototyping’

So given the above (my mental model as informed by a paper by Gomoll), I tried to make sense of Flanagan’s points in that context and show how her points have also added to my mental model.

Flanagan emphasizes a certain type of making for critical play, and expounds on why it might be important to make in such a way
Critical play made my brainstorming constipated