Ahn, Kinkead, Krevitz, Truver 1 - personal.psu.edu 1.pdf · Ahn, Kinkead, Krevitz, Truver 2 and without disabilities is not supported with typical playground design, “The experience

Ahn, Kinkead, Krevitz, Truver

1

Hyunjin Ahn, Kyle Kinkead, Jackie Krevitz, and Chad Truver

Dr. Charles Cox

EDSGN 100 Section 18

17 March 2013

EDSGN 100 Project 01 Universally Accessible Playground Equipment that Spins Users

Abstract:

In this project, we are investigating innovative playground equipment that presents no

barriers to disabled children. Specifically, our group looked into the spinning category of

equipment on playgrounds. We proceeded on fake data provided to us due to time

constraints. Differences were found between user groups, as children look for activities

and variation. Between users in the two schools, the social function and the importance of

playgrounds appeared to depend on the context, in terms of site-specific physical and

social conditions. After identifying the specifications and needs, we have come to a

mutual solution for spinning equipment for playgrounds.

Introduction:

Existing Conditions:The physical environment that many playgrounds provide can be

limiting for children with disabilities and may hinder, rather than promote play (Tamm &

Skär, 2000). Research has shown that children with disabilities usually experience limited

accessibility to playgrounds, “… compared with children without disabilities, chil-dren

with disabilities lacked a number of opportunities to use this environment [short comment

describing what that environment is] and if they could use it they were not on equal terms

with others” (Prellwitz & Skar, 2007). In addition, peer interaction between children with


2

and without disabilities is not supported with typical playground design, “The experience

of the children with disabilities was different: they were seldom with friends at the

playground. One child said, ‘Once I was with a friend at the playground, we sat on the

swings, but it was only once.’ None of the children with disabilities mentioned ever

making new friends at the playground” (Prellwitz & Skar, 2007). When accessible

equipment is actually available, it is often isolated from regular equipment.

Existing conditions are summarized in a condensed section of our précis:

• Being included as a child promotes active participation and citizenship as an adult

• Playgrounds now do not promote integration or interaction, due to inaccessibility

• There is little recently available equipment that is accessible • For disabled children, the playground is an obstacle that prevents them from

learning social norms

With regard to the site proposed for constructing our final concept, it is sloped as

shown in figure 1. The equipment model itself will be constructed on the large, flat


3

portion of the lot.

Figure 1. Proposed location of equipment. Note that the spinning equipment in this paper

will be constructed on lot D, while similarly experimental equipment intended to be

universally accessible will be constructed on adjacent lots.

The playground system will involve three main groups of stakeholders. While

these are mainly self-explanatory, they are the owner (a public school in this scenario),

the kids (both able bodied and disabled), and the parents (), and of course the company

that builds it.


4

Clearly, the needs of the stakeholders are the most important. As stated before, the

problem that needs to be tackled is that of making playground equipment that is

universally accessible. This is one of the biggest needs of Americans with Disabilities

Act parents and kids, coupled along with making the equipment safe for these kids.

Safety is also important for the school and the company that builds the equipment,

as they do not want to be held liable for any possible injuries from falls, (et cetera)

In terms of the users, the kids, they need such things as a colorful environment

with space to play freely, with equipment that promotes interaction and imagination.

Most of these features are already in existing equipment.

Problems are summarized in the figure 2:

Figure 2. Existing conditions

Problems

Funding

Existing Eqiupment is restricted

Able-bodied and

disabled are separated

universally acceissible eqiupment

is under represented


5

Funding is a definite issue. While a perfect piece of equipment is desired, the company

and the school alike have a certain budget to work with. According to[this is Morris being

represented, so tell who she is], “The playgrounds cost more than traditional

ones…because wheelchair-friendly surfacing can cost four times more than that of

typical playgrounds. … [M]ost groups and communities pay for them with donations and

public funds.” (paraphrased in Hughes, [page number]).

Also, existing accessible equipment is under represented; meaning that there

aren’t many models or previous designs of accessible equipment to form ideas from or

base new designs on. This could be because handicap kids were never really considered

when playgrounds were previously designed because they never came out to utilize the

equipment; in reality, they didn’t come out because there was never initially anything for

them to do there (Hughes, NY Times).

On top of this, accessible equipment is restricted. When it is actually available, it

is separated from the usual equipment, isolating children across a range of disabilities.

Preferred Conditions


6

This is where the needs of the parents and the needs of the children come

together. It is preferred that equipment becomes integrated, combining the needs and

wants of both groups of children in the equipment. Not only universal accessibility is

needed, but also the equipment should promote interaction among all children regardless

of disability.

Realistically, not every individual problem that the preferred conditions present

can be fully addressed. We first and foremost chose to address universal

accessibilityNext in line is integration among equipment and interaction among children,

which were both chosen to be addressed equally. Safety is touched on but is not as

important, and such things as promoting imagination and color schemes were not

addressed.

Methodology:

In general, four things could be looked at in terms of data collection: designs of

current equipment, handicap children’s preferences, what children want in their

playground, and what equipment best promotes interaction. Considering our genre of

spinning equipment, we can go more in depth with data to be collected. We can look at

what equipment exists and how well it is received by users, any regulations in place for

spinning equipment, the best materials to use, and what makes said equipment cost

effective and safe. These kinds of data would normally be obtained from such means

ranging from a literature search to actual playground visits, but, for sake of time, we were

provided with fabricated data (as mentioned before). This fabricated data included mostly

Likert scale questions and small questionnaires for the children on specific topics of their

playground. Some important data points to call attention to are as follows:


7

• What pieces of equipment look the coolest and why? o school A: 15 children chose the merry-go-round as looking the coolest,

mostly for reasons having nothing to do with appearance (e.g., because it spins, because it makes me dizzy, because the world looks funny when I’m on it, etc.) and 13 children did not respond

• Would you feel uncomfortable playing with someone in a wheelchair, yes or no?

o school A: Y 6, N 21, No response 1 • Do you prefer to play by yourself or with others?

o school A: BY 5, WO 22, No response 1 o school B: BY 10, WO 20, No response 3

Data Analysis:

Some of the needs identified under preferred conditions match the needs found

through the collected data, but others needs were discovered through the data as well.

We previously identified needs such as universally accessible equipment, but there was

not much data collected regarding this fact. Some children reported that they would feel

uncomfortable playing with a child in a wheelchair, but most would not mind. Another

big need was safety, from the parent, child’s and school’s point of view. The data

showed that the biggest worry of parents was that their children would fall off of the

existing equipment and get hurt. As well, more than 1/3 of children did not feel safe on

the merry-go-round. Another preferred condition was to create equipment that promotes

interaction between children, and the data showed that more than 2/3 of the students

interviewed preferred playing with other children to playing alone. Colorful equipment

was not as important as we thought it would be, but the data did show that equipment that

looked especially “cool” really impressed the children. As well, the students preferred

equipment that was spread out and they had felt crowded at times with their old limited

equipment, so our preferred condition to create a playground with space for the kids to


8

play freely was spot on. A need that we failed to previously identify was that the

equipment must be age appropriate. At playground B, the equipment bored the students

for the most part.


9


10

During the first concept generation, we worked to find a design that would

incorporate all of the preferred conditions and needs previously identified. We explored

with four different designs, each with their own pros and cons. Each design incorporated

a universally accessible part in order to allow children in wheelchairs to access the

equipment safely. The axonometric drawings of each design are pictured below.


11

Third Angle Projection of the

equipment we choose to create.

(highlighted).

One piece of spinning equipment that exists that already that meets the needs listed can

be found in Israel. It has many different sections, some for children in wheelchairs and

some for children without disabilities. It has many bars for children to hold on to in order

to keep them safe.


12

The most important need for this product was that it had to be universally

accessible. That was the main goal of this project, and we addressed it first in both

concept generation and concept selection. The next important need was child safety, as

that is a need of parents, children, and school administrators as well. Some less important

needs, in order from most to least important, include promoting interacting between

children, having age appropriate equipment, having spread out equipment, and having the

equipment look “cool”. The safety railing around the outside of the equipment ensured

the safety of the children. Thedevice used to secure wheelchairs to the ride allowed for

both accessible equipment and safety for disabled children. Many children can play on

the equipment at once, due to the large seat. The size of the bench was age appropriate

for children around 6 to 10 years old. The colors of our design were used to make the

spinning equipment more appealing to the children.

Jackie Chad Hyunjin Kyle Existing Safety + - - - 0 Accessible + - + - - Self-Propelled

+ - 0 + 0

Wheelchair Latch

+ + + - -

Needs Assistance

- - - - 0

Force Required

- - - - 0

Stopping Mechanism

- - - - -


13

Conclusions:

Our spinning equipment in the playground was built based on what we found in the data

analysis. What our group found in the data analysis, was that there were key needs/goals

that each stakeholder had in repetition. The goals were safety, universality, usability, and

interaction between all children. Safety on the equipment was met by using the right

material and designing a railing around the equipment to keep kids from flying out of the

‘Blender’. Universality was met by designing the equipment to allow any kid (wheelchair

or not; also, assumed that users have full use of their arms) to be able to use the

equipment. Usability was met by making the equipment simple and easy to use alone or


14

with others. Lastly, interaction among children was met by making the equipment big

enough for more than 4 children to use the equipment at a time and having no barriers

between able and disabled kids.

In terms of using this piece of equipment, it is fairly straight forward for an able-

bodied child. However, for a wheelchair kid, it is just slightly more complex. The

equipment is flush to the ground, so that the child can essentially wheel straight onto the

equipment with ease. Once on board, a latching system is in place to keep the chair and

rider in place during the ride, assuming that the rider uses the equipment correctly. This

system is a very simple system, but it may be hard to visualize. It incorporates two lever

systems (one for each back wheel of the wheelchair), each involving two levers in a “V”

shape, and a pivot point at the base point of said “V”. The user would pull each lever

system in an upward direction, thus engaging the latching system. Unfortunately, we do

not have a picture or accurate drawing of this system to include.


15

References

Prellwitz M, Skar L. (2007). “Usability of playgrounds for children with different

abilities. Occupational Therapy International 14(3):144-155.

"Wordless Wednesday - Friendship Park in Israel." Accessible Playgrounds. N.p., 2013.

Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

“Developing Accessible Play Space in the UK: A Social Model Approach.” Children,

Youth, and Environments. 2005. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

“Usability of playgrounds for children with different abilities.” John Wiley and Sons,

Ltd. 2007. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/database/79705/

http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/database/79705/

Documents

Ahn, Kinkead, Krevitz, Truver 1 - personal.psu.edu 1.pdf · Ahn, Kinkead, Krevitz, Truver 2 and without disabilities is not supported with typical playground design, “The experience