Co-Design

ISSN: 1571-0882 (Print) 1745-3755 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncdn20

A participatory design approach to information

architecture design for children

Joon-Sang Baek & Kun-Pyo Lee

To cite this article: Joon-Sang Baek & Kun-Pyo Lee (2008) A participatory design
approach to information architecture design for children, Co-Design, 4:3, 173-191, DOI:
10.1080/15710880802281026

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802281026

Published online: 18 Aug 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4519

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncdn20
CoDesign
Vol. 4, No. 3, September 2008, 173–191

A participatory design approach to information architecture design for

children
Joon-Sang Baeka* and Kun-Pyo Leeb
a
Mobile Communication Division, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Seoul, South Korea;
b
Department of Industrial Design, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
Daejon, South Korea
(Received 14 December 2007; final version received 17 June 2008)

A design process that involves the participation of children should effectively elicit the
needs of child users by considering characteristics such as their age-appropriate levels of
cognitive ability, shyness, language skills, and motor-sensory capabilities. Since the
1960s, a variety of methods and guidelines have emerged specialising in children.
Participatory design deals with the problem of enabling users to participate in the design
process and with the task of generating ideas by means of generative toolkits and
workshops. Hence, participatory design enables designers to look at problems from a
child’s standpoint and, simultaneously, deal with childhood traits such as shyness and
immature language skills. This paper introduces two participatory design toolkits:
namely Info Block and Info Tree. These toolkits enable users to build information
architecture (IA) that can, firstly, reflect their cognitive characteristics and, secondly,
elicit user needs with respect to the information architecture design of children’s
websites. In a case study, the toolkits were used to evaluate the usability of the Yahoo!1
Kids (Korea) directory. The results show that the information architecture of children
differs from that of adults in depth, breadth, and clarity of contents and logicality.
Finally, suggestions are made to improve the usability of children’s websites.
Keywords: children; information architecture; participatory design

1. Introduction
In information architecture design, conventional methods of studying the participation of
users, such as focus group interviews, usability testing, and log data analysis, are less
effective for determining the needs of children because the methods, which were developed
primarily for adults, ignore the developmental characteristics of children, such as shyness
and limited language and social skills. Of the many design methods that have been
developed for children, participatory design is useful for eliciting the tacit and latent needs
of users, and can thereby provide abundant data on the cognitive characteristics that need
to be supported in the design of information architecture.
Rather than relying on the individual creativity of designers to solve design problems
in a specific context, a participatory design process relies on the collective generativity of
stakeholders; in other words, it uses the collective ability of stakeholders to generate or
create thoughts and imaginings. By analysing what users create with generative toolkits,

*Corresponding author. Email: joonsbaek@gmail.com

ISSN 1571-0882 print/ISSN 1745-3755 online

Ó 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15710880802281026
http://www.informaworld.com
174 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

researchers can elicit the tacit needs of users; that is, the needs that are implied or indicated
but not actually expressed.
In March 2000, Yahoo! Korea launched a portal website for children, called
Yahoo!1 Kids, Korea (in short, Yahoo Kids). Yahoo Kids, which has been one of the
leading websites for children, with over 15 million page views per day in 2002, is a good
case study for testing the participatory design approach because it targets children and
has not previously been exposed to the participatory design approach. Yahoo! Korea
listens to customers through various channels, such as interviews with parents and
teachers and feedback from website users; in most cases, however, the feedback is from
adults, not children. In 2002, the company conducted an in-lab usability test but the
results showed that children were rather passive and bored throughout the experiment.
Like Yahoo!, Yahoo Kids provides a web directory or categorisation of links to other
websites. Yahoo Kids directory has numerous links of websites, which are displayed by
category and subcategory, making it a good example of hierarchical information
architecture.
Because our case study is concerned with the usability of a website, we had to
develop toolkits that help children express their cognitive processes in a form that can be
analysed. Hence, we developed two types of generative toolkits, Info Block and Info
Tree, both of which help children create information architecture for themselves. The
toolkits are based on the psychological observation that play is a child’s natural medium
of self-expression (Axline 1969) and that children are most creative when playing. Thus,
the toolkits resemble children’s everyday toys in form and function, and were designed
to stimulate natural behaviour during tests. While the two toolkits have a common goal
of improving the user interface of Yahoo Kids, each serves a different purpose. Info
Block focuses on analysing the existing information architecture, whereas Info Tree
focuses on discovering the interests and expectations of children. By analysing the
information architecture that children built with the toolkits, we can identify its
characteristics and compare it with the current information architecture of the adult-
designed Yahoo Kids directory.
In section 2 of this paper, we explain the background to our research and discuss why
information architecture design for children is an important issue in the market. In section
3, we describe conventional methods of studying users and discuss the problems that arise
when these methods are applied to children. In section 4, we introduce the participatory
design approach and compare it with conventional methods. In section 5, we describe a
case study and explain the development of the toolkits, as well as the experimental process
and results. In section 6, we discuss how information architecture of children differs from
that of adults, and we explore the participatory design process of the experiment. Finally,
we present our conclusions and the limitations of the study in sections 7 and 8.

2. Emergence of children as a major user group

The emergence of the Internet and a wide range of software products for children have
exposed users to complex forms of information architecture. In many developed and
developing countries, where Internet access is available at home, at school and at Internet
cafes, elementary school students have emerged as enthusiastic users. This phenomenon
has led to a boom in e-businesses that targets children, including online communities,
games, search engines and educational services. Online educational services, for example,
are merging with the educational software industry, and online games and virtual
communities are popular among children, even causing a social problem of PC addiction
 CoDesign 175

(Baek 2003). In the case of South Korean search engines, there are at least six portal
websites just for children, and all the sites provide links to numerous online educational
services, games and communities.
McNeal (1992) presents the following reasons for the growth of the children’s market:
first, the children’s market is the primary market where children can purchase things for
themselves; products such as gaming software belong to this category. Second, the
children’s market is one where children can be stimulated to influence their parents’
purchasing behaviour: a child’s preference for educational software, for example, is likely
to have a strong influence on which product the parents purchase. Third, the children’s
market is the future market where children will become major consumers in 10–20 years.
Any interface or brand that children are familiar with will have an advantage over
competitors in the future. Due to the increasing value of the children’s market, we need to
accurately and objectively elicit children’s needs. Hence, marketing researchers have
introduced numerous ways of evaluating the consumer behaviour of children (for example,
observation, laboratory experiments, and role-playing) as well as ways of understanding
the child’s mind (for example, attitude scales, focus group interviews, and picture-drawing
techniques; McNeal 1992). In the study of human-centred interaction, researchers began
involving children in the design process as early as the 1960s; since then, the role of
children has evolved along with the methods of eliciting their needs (Druin 2002). As the
buying power of children continues to grow, so too does the demand for effective methods
of studying users.
Despite the potential of the children’s market, the e-business industry is reluctant to
explore the type of user-centredness and user-participation that is pervasive in other fields
of design. In cooperation with Yahoo Kids, our focus is on the participatory design of
information architecture for children.

3. Conventional methods of information architecture design

For information architecture design, conventional methods of studying users include focus
group interviews, usability testing, online questionnaires, user analysis, log files and
statistic reports. The data collected from such methods are analysed for the purpose of
finding problems and improving products. However, these methods are problematic when
applied to children. First, children differ from adults in terms of developmental
characteristics, particularly with respect to short-term memory span, language skills,
and cognitive processes (Yoo 2000); hence, conventional methods are likely to present
problems in effectively eliciting children’s needs. For example, a child’s shyness or passive
attitude to unfamiliar people or an unfamiliar environment can obstruct communication
with the tester. Second, because children participate in the design process at the evaluation
phase, their influence on the decision-making process is limited. Druin (2002) claims that
the later children participate in the design process, the less direct impact they have on
changes in technology; moreover, when given a limited schedule, adults tend to decide
what should be done in the end. On the other hand, when children participate in the earlier
stages of the design process, there is more flexibility regarding when and where activities
take place and the design of technologies is therefore likely to be more user-centred. Third,
because of inadequate language skill, children may not express their thoughts clearly;
hence, the task of discerning their needs from conversation is impoverished, especially
when the conversation is about an abstract topic such as information architecture. In this
case, analysis of user behavioural patterns or prototypes can supplement language-
dependent methods and help discern the user’s tacit needs (Sanders 1999; Druin 2002).
176 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

As discussed in the following section, participatory design overcomes the limitation of

verbal protocols by analysing what users have made.

4. Participatory design
While traditional methods of researching design focus primarily on observational research
and questionnaires, participatory design focuses on the things people make in order to
elicit what they think, feel and dream (Sanders 1999).
To solve design problems, participatory design uses the collective generativity1 of
stakeholders rather than the individual creativity of designers (Sanders 1999). Designers
can discover problems that are specific to a particular context by having workshops and
discussing design issues with users, managers, and sales people. In this kind of workshop,
designers use a generative toolkit to connect the ideas of people from different disciplines
and perspectives. Participants of the workshops (the stakeholders) use toolkits as a form of
‘quick-and-dirty’ prototyping, to visualise their thoughts in the generative phase of a design
process; designers then analyse the results to elicit the needs of the participants (Sung et al.
2003). Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between actions and the needs that may be
extracted from them (Sanders 1999). Whereas the user needs collected from conventional
methods are based on explicit knowledge or observable behaviour, the needs elicited from
participatory design are based on tacit knowledge, which cannot readily be expressed in
words (Sanders 1999). In Figure 2, a group of housewives are using a generative toolkit to
modify a pram at a shopping mall. Participatory design is especially useful in cases like this
where the design depends heavily on the context of the user (a mother carrying an infant), as
well as the situation (shopping) and the environment (a shopping mall).
Participatory design with children was explored by Druin (1998). Druin claimed that
when a participatory design method is applied to children it is possible to identify new
technological possibilities that might not otherwise have been considered. Druin
emphasised the importance of collaboration between children and adults and insisted
that children who are not well-skilled in the development process could be inspired and
empowered by their collaboration with adults to generate new ideas. Because low-tech
tools give equal footing to adults and children as design partners, and because adults and
children both know how to use these prototyping tools, children can actively participate in
the process. Table 1 compares the participatory design approach and conventional
approaches.
In this study, we used the participatory design approach to assess the usability of
Yahoo Kids directory. We chose participatory design for three reasons. First, information
architecture is too complex and abstract to discuss with children. Children have immature

Figure 1. The relationship between action and need (Sanders 1999).

 CoDesign 177

Figure 2. A group of housewives participating in a workshop for a baby carriage.

language and social skills, and may have difficulty articulating their needs when engaged in
highly cognitive activities. However, they are accustomed to visualising ideas by drawing
or making things, as these methods of generating ideas are typical childhood pastimes.
This experience is why participatory design stimulates interest among children and helps
them overcome passive attitudes or shyness when in the company of authority figures, a
phenomenon frequently observed in the testing of children. Second, because cognitive
activities are more difficult to observe than physical activities, cognitive needs are harder to
elicit than physical needs. In the participatory design process, however, children use
generative toolkits to produce prototypes that contain abundant data on cognitive
characteristics. Third, because participatory design approaches treat design problems from
the child’s standpoint, they tend to overcome adult attitudes towards children. With its
element of fun, the participatory design approach has several advantages, particularly with
respect to the natural behaviour patterns of the children and their early participation in the
design process; moreover, this approach is less dependent on language skills and more able
to deal with variations in cognitive development.

5. Experiment
The purpose of this experiment was to collect information architecture created by children
and to compare it with that of Yahoo Kids Directory so as to identify and analyse the
cognitive characteristics of children. Before the experiment, we conducted a pilot test to
validate the ability of children to comprehend the notion of information architecture and
we gave them toolkits to create the information architecture.

5.1. Pilot test

In the pilot test, we asked 5 children (three from grade 3 of age 9 and two from grade 4 of
age 10) to complete a set of tasks in 45 min. We gave each of them 35 keywords and asked
them to organise the words in the form of a concept map. Next, we divided them into two

Table 1. Comparison of the participatory design approach and conventional approaches.
Children’s role in the design process
Dependence on children’s language skills
Children’s behaviour pattern
Dealing with children’s cognitive process
Educational effect
Element of fun
Conventional approaches
Children participate as a tester, i.e. they do the
tasks given by researchers and they provide
data
Conventional approaches, such as focus
group interviews, questionnaires, and
in-depth interviews, depend heavily on
language skills to elicit needs
Tasks are conducted alone in a laboratory
environment with unfamiliar people; such
situations can inhibit the active participation
and natural behaviour of children
Current approaches focus on the discovery of
design problems by using usability testing
and log data analysis; such methods are
problematic because they make no allowance
for the cognitive abilities of children
There is no significant educational effect
There is no element of fun
178
Participatory design approach
Children participate as a design partner, i.e.
they participate in the design process and
create their own information architecture
Participatory design targets the eliciting of a
user’s tacit needs, relying to a much lesser
degree on conversation
Since children do the tasks in groups and in a
familiar situation, they tend to overcome the
inhibition of the testing situation and behave
more naturally
The information architecture of children can
be compared with that of adults, leading to
the discovery of fundamental differences
between the two.
J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee
Teamwork and the process of organising
information contribute to the development
of children’s social skills and the acquisition
of knowledge
The design of the toolkits is based on the
developmental characteristics of children
and awareness of the value children attach to
the pleasure of play.
 CoDesign 179

groups and gave them toolkits (Info Tree and Info Block) along with instructions on how
to use them. We then asked each group to design information architecture for a portal
website, similar to Yahoo Kids. The results were analysed in terms of logicality and
consistency of grouping. Four children successfully designed hierarchical information
architecture in a manner that respected the natural grouping of the keywords. However, a
girl from grade three merely arranged the keywords linearly and failed to form any
hierarchical information architecture. In the group task, both groups created hierarchical
information architecture with the toolkits. The test ended with a brief interview with the
children. They said they had learned and practiced mind mapping in grade two, which
probably contributed to their successful performance.

Table 2. Composition of the teams.

Team Toolkit Grade Age Gender Size

1 Info Tree 3 9 F, M 2
2 Info Tree 4 10 M 3
3 Info Tree 5 11 M 3
4 Info Tree 5,6 11–12 F 3
5 Info Block 3 9 F, M 3
6 Info Block 4 10 F, M 4
7 Info Block 5 11 F 3
8 Info Block 5,6 11–12 M 3
9 Card sorting 5 11 M 2

Figure 3. Hierarchical information architecture drawn by a third-grade girl.

180 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

Figure 4. Linear information architecture drawn by a third-grade girl.

5.2. Experimental method and procedure

The test involved 26 children (14 boys and 12 girls) aged from 10 to 12 years of age. We
divided them into nine teams of two to four members and allocated an adult moderator to
each team. Four teams were given the Info Tree toolkit and entrusted with the task of
building information architecture for a children’s portal website. They started by
generating the major categories of the web directory and then added sub-categories to
form hierarchical information architecture. Another four teams were given the Info Block
toolkit and asked to reorganise the current information architecture of Yahoo Kids.
Unlike the Info Tree teams, the Info Block teams were given the labels of the links
provided by Yahoo Kids. On the Yahoo Kids website, the links lead to other websites and
constitute the lowest hierarchical level of the information architecture. The task of the Info
Block teams was to organise the links to reproduce the information architecture of Yahoo
Kids. The ninth team was given the same task as the Info Block teams but instead of the
Info Block toolkit, they used the ordinary card-sorting method. However, the result of
the ninth team is not discussed in this paper because we think it is beyond the boundary
of the focus of this study.
The adult moderator in each team collaborated with the children throughout the
experiment. The role of a moderator was to help the children create ideas and encourage
them to build their information architecture. The nine moderators, aged from 21 to 23
 CoDesign 181

years of age, were industrial design graduate students. Their role is elaborated in section
5.3.2.
The experiment was conducted in a classroom rather than a lab to minimise the effect
of the test conditions on the behaviour of the children. The test lasted 80 min and, with the
children’s consent, the process was recorded on video.

5.3. Toolkits
The participatory design toolkits Info Block1 and Info Tree12 analyse cognitive processes
in order to identify user needs. The toolkits were intended to help the children build an
information architecture in an enjoyable and easy manner (Axline 1969). In addition, they
were designed to enable children to produce prototypes that reflect their tacit needs,
thereby disclosing information about their cognitive processes (Sanders 1999). The toolkits
also minimise problems associated with the passivity and shyness of children and a heavy
dependence on conversation.
In designing the toolkits, we adapted the principle of play therapy. According to
Axline (1969), play therapy is based on the fact that play is a child’s natural medium of
self-expression; just as adults ‘talk out’ their difficulties in therapy, children ‘play out’ their
feelings and problems. Furthermore, Bruner (1972, cited in Yoo 2000) claimed that play
contributes to the development of a child’s creativity and flexibility. In play, the means are
more important than the end; hence, in play a child is free from the burden of achieving
goals and can consequently be more adventurous and experimental. Accordingly, if we
apply the principle of play to the process of design for children, we can help the children

Figure 5. Experiment procedure.

182 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

actively participate in experiments and express their tacit needs. Moreover, because
children in the concrete operational stage of cognitive development can play games with
rules (Yoo 2000), we designed Info Tree and Info Block to resemble construction play3
with rules.

5.3.1. Info Block

Info Block enables children to generate ideas and to use these ideas to construct
hierarchical information architecture. The tool consists of 40 mm 6 40 mm 6 20 mm
blocks of 7 spectral colours, each of which represents a depth of information hierarchy.
Velcro is attached to the surface of the blocks so that the blocks can be easily grouped and
stacked.
The instructions on the use of the Info Block toolkit are as follows.

(1) Form a group of three or four members and sit around a table.
(2) Randomly put the blocks on the table.
(3) Generate ideas related to a given subject and write them down on the red blocks.
(4) Group the related blocks.
(5) When the grouping is finished, generate keywords that represent the groups and
write them down on the orange blocks.
(6) Stack the grouped blocks and place the keyword block on top of each stack. An
orange block should be placed on each stack of red blocks.
(7) If the stacks can be grouped further, group the related stacks and generate
keywords that represent each group. Write them down on the yellow block and put
it on top of each group of stacks.
(8) Repeat step 7 until no more groups can be formed. The colour of the next keyword
block will be green, then blue and so on in the order of the seven spectral colours.

The instructions were originally given verbally during the orientation and delivered in
Korean. In the experiment, we tried to use terminologies appropriate to the children. For
example, instead of using the word ‘information architecture’, we used ‘mind map’ because

Figure 6. An Info Block and its stack.

 CoDesign 183

children were familiar with the latter from the school curriculum. Neither was the term
‘hierarchy’ used. Instead, we illustrated an example of hierarchical information
architecture on the board.

5.3.2. Info Tree

Info Tree is based on Buzan and Buzan’s principle of mind maps (Buzan and Buzan 1996)
and provides children with a quick and easy way to generate and organise ideas. Info Tree
uses the metaphor of a tree to help children comprehend the concept of information
architecture; the tree consists of a Styrofoam trunk, wooden sticks and Styrofoam balls of
different sizes.

Figure 7. An example of prototype created by children with Info Blocks.

Figure 8. An example of information architecture created by children with Info Blocks.

184 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

Figure 9. The trunk and branches of Info Tree.

The instructions on the use of the Info Tree toolkit are as follows.

(1) Form a group of three or four members and sit around a table.
(2) Place the trunk on the table. The trunk symbolises the main topic of the
information architecture.
(3) Generate ideas that are related to the topic and, using post-it notes, write the ideas
on the biggest Styrofoam balls.
(4) Generate sub-ideas that are related to the ideas in step 3 and, using Post-It notes,
write the sub-ideas on the next biggest balls.
(5) Repeat step 3 until the Info Tree is complete.

5.4. Results
The results of the sessions were analysed and evaluated in terms of the
information architecture produced by the children and the participatory design
process. For the information architecture, we quantitatively analysed the children’s
outcomes and made a comparison with the structure in Yahoo Kids directory. For the
participatory design process, we made a qualitative analysis in terms of the following
questions: Firstly, do the toolkits enable users to produce prototypes that reflect the
tacit needs of users; that is, do they disclose information about the users’ cognitive
processes? Secondly, do the toolkits enable users to participate actively and unselfcon-
sciously while at the same time reducing the heavy dependence on conversation and
creating fun in the process?

5.4.1. Analysis of the information architecture

To identify the cognitive characteristics of the children, we analysed their information
architecture in terms of logicality and structural shape. The logicality was assessed on
 CoDesign 185

Figure 10. An example of prototype created by children with Info Tree.

Figure 11. An example of information architecture created by children with Info Tree.

the basis of every parent–child relation among the keywords in the information hierarchy.
The structural shape was assessed on the basis of the breadth and depth of the information
architecture. We applied the two criteria to the information architecture produced by the
children and to the information architecture of Yahoo Kids.
186 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

Our analysis reveals the following characteristics of the children’s information

architecture.

. It has more illogical errors than the Yahoo Kids information architecture.
. The contents are categorised ambiguously; hence, a piece of information may belong
to more than one category.
. It is wider and shallower than the Yahoo Kids information architecture.

With regard to the first characteristic, namely that the children’s information architecture
has more illogical errors than the Yahoo Kids information architecture, we categorised the
following five types of parent–child relations.

. Inclusive: Keywords are in an inclusive relation if a parent keyword includes a child

keyword by definition. For example, the relation between ‘The seasons’ and
‘Summer’ is inclusive because summer is one of the four seasons, but not vice versa.
. Illogical jump: There is an illogical jump in a relation if a parent keyword is too
broad in meaning to include a child keyword. For example, the relation between
‘Sports’ and ‘Tiger Woods’ belongs to this category because other intermediate
keywords can be used, such as ‘Athlete’.
. Inversely inclusive: Keywords are in an inversely inclusive relation if a child keyword
includes a parent keyword. For example, the relation between ‘Summer’ and ‘The
seasons’ is inclusive because the notion of seasons includes the notion of Summer,
but not vice versa.
. Identical: Keywords are identical if a parent keyword and a child keyword have the
same meaning. An example would be the two keywords ‘Education’ and
‘Education’.
. Associated: Keywords are associated with each other if their relation does not belong
to any of the four categories above. The words ‘The seasons’ and ‘Travel’ would be
an example of this category.

Of these relations, only the inclusive relation is considered a logical parent–child relation
in hierarchical information architecture. An associated relation occurs as a result of the
children’s lack of logicality and their misunderstanding of conventional hierarchies.
During the experiment, the children often grouped associated concepts and thought the
organisation was complete. Illogical jumps are the result of the children’s imperfect
knowledge. For example, children may put a number of movie titles under the movie
category because either they do not know that a movie can be further categorised into
genres or they simply forget to complete the grouping. Inversely inclusive relations and
identical relations occur mainly because children do not understand the meanings of
parent or child keywords.
Table 3 shows that 50% of the children’s structure has errors whereas only 11% of the
structure of the current Yahoo Kids directory has errors. In the case of the current Yahoo
Kids directory, the errors were intentional: that is, some popular keywords were used
intentionally to enhance the search. For example, the ‘Game’ category in the main
directory is linked to a page that lists the genres of games and the six most popular games.
In this case, the six most popular games are emphasised. The children’s structure has twice
as many illogical jumps as the current Yahoo Kids directory. This phenomenon shows
that, with respect to creating information architecture or navigating websites, the
children’s thinking is influenced more by their own knowledge associations than by
 CoDesign 187

conventional logic. Logic means less to children than to adults. It would appear that
children are satisfied as long as the search is efficient and easy.
With regard to the second characteristic of ambiguous categorisation, we found that
the ambiguity is not simply a matter of human subjectivity but due to the ambiguity of the
language itself. It is reasonable to hypothesise that children with underdeveloped language
skills are more likely to have an ambiguous knowledge structure than adults, and this
hypothesis may account for errors in the children’s information architecture.
With regard to the third characteristic, namely that children produce a wider and
shallower information architecture than adults, we found, as shown in Table 4, that the
information architecture created by children is, on average, 33% shallower and 70% wider
than the adult information architecture of Yahoo Kids. The reason for this outcome is
that children lack the ability to organise their ideas systematically. In the experiment with
Info Tree, children were given a topic and asked to use radiant thinking (Buzan and Buzan
1996) to generate related ideas. In the experiment with Info Block, the children were given
a set of keywords and asked to categorise them until the words converged to one general
idea. We observed, however, that the children often stopped structuring once they had put
related words together. Hence, the lack of logical criteria results in horizontal growth
rather than vertical growth in information architecture.

5.4.2. Evaluation of participatory design process

(1) Tacit needs. In evaluating the way children produce information architecture, we can
see a close relation between the tacit needs and cognitive processes of children. The use of

Table 3. Relations between keywords in the children’s information architecture.

Relation between keywords Children’s IA (%) Adults’ IA (Yahoo directory) (%)

Related 18 0
Inclusive 50 89
Illogical jump 24 11
Inversely inclusive 4 0
No relationship 1 0
Identical 3 0
100 100

Table 4. Comparison between the information architecture of children and adults.

IA created IA created Yahoo Kids

with Info Block with Info Tree directory
No. of info units 55 68.1 45
Width
1st level hierarchy 7 9.4 6
2nd level hierarchy 25 28.3 24
3rd level hierarchy 38 28.8 7
4th level hierarchy 2 6.0 8
5th level hierarchy 2.0
Depth 3 3.6 4
Avg. breadth (no. of info units/depth) 20 19.6 11.3
188 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

verbal protocols to identify the usability problems may be less effective because of
children’s inadequate language skills. Observation of children’s behaviour may disclose the
problems, though researchers must be able to identify the causes and understand the
cognitive characteristics of children. Our toolkits were designed to help children build their
own information architecture. The information architecture created by children reflects a
cognitive level that differs from the information architecture of adults.

(2) The role of the moderator. Each team’s results varied in quality and quantity. During
the experiment, we discovered that the results were often influenced by not only the type of
toolkit but also the atmosphere of the team. The results varied significantly among the
teams that used the same toolkits. We also observed that the success of the participatory
design process depended on the role of the moderator. A moderator in a successful group
showed the following characteristics.

. He or she actively participated in the process to prevent children from digressing;

they also made sure that every child was involved and that the result was not overly
influenced by the opinions of the group’s leaders.
. He or she treated the children objectively. If a moderator treats children as inferior
because they are young, the children seem to feel underestimated. On the other hand,
if he treats children as peers, the children seem to feel awkward.
. He or she paid attention and helped the children to quickly identify and solve
problems. For example, by ensuring that the group was not dominated by one or
two outspoken members of the group, as such dominance tends to isolate or
discourage others. The group had to be facilitated so that everyone participated
equally and maintained an interest in the task.

(3) Pros and cons of video recording. The advantages and disadvantages of using a video
camera to observe children are well known. Druin (1998) recommends note-taking rather
than videotaping for a contextual inquiry because note-taking inhibits the Hawthorn
effect: that is, the tendency of children to ‘perform’ in front of a video camera. Iverson
(2002), on the other hand, claims that video cameras may stimulate children and help
observers to uncover needs that are normally not observed, and suggests that a video
camera can be used as an instrument of provocation. In our experiment, some of the girls
from grades five and six refused to be filmed on camera, but the camera appeared to have
no significant consequence on the rest of the participants. The children did perform when
they first saw the camera but they soon became absorbed in the tasks and ignored its
existence. However, we used note-taking for the girls from grades five and six who refused
to be filmed. Aside from these cases, the video camera was an effective tool for collecting
rich data about the children.

(4) Fun. ‘That looks like more fun!’ This comment was uttered by a child in an Info Block
team while pointing at the Info Tree. Our observation of the children confirms that they
expected each task to be fun. In other words, the children considered each task to be a
form of play, not work. Fun is important because it keeps children focused. The
recommended testing time for children is 45 min, but children can stay focused for longer
if they find the tasks to be fun (Hanna et al. 1997). The element of fun therefore improves
the quality and quantity of the test data. Although the children from grade three and four
soon became absorbed in the tasks, at times the sixth-graders and some of the seventh-
graders appeared bored; for example, they would play independently with the toolkits and
 CoDesign 189

digress during the test. This behaviour suggests that the toolkit may have been
inappropriate for children on the cusp of the formal operational stage of cognitive
development.

(5) Effectiveness of questionnaires for testing children. After the prototyping session, the
children were asked to discuss with moderators any aspects or problems they faced during
the experiment and to make a general evaluation of the toolkits. The moderators led the
discussion by asking the children the following questions: (1) Which keywords were hard
to group and why? (2) Is there any illogical decision in the grouping and why? (3) What
criteria did you use in grouping the keywords? (4) How did you choose the main keyword?
(5) Do the main keywords properly represent the group? If not, why not?
The children gave detailed answers to concrete questions on issues such as
demographic data. However, they responded with short statements such as ‘I just did it’
or ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions on information architecture, probably because the topic was
too abstract and difficult for discussion. The children were very honest and kindly told us
what they knew about each topic but, in spite of their positive attitude, the discussion was
hindered by their level of cognitive development.

(6) Cooperation. At six years of age, the concrete operational stage, children can play
cooperatively and are beginning to learn social and reciprocal activity from one another
(Yoo 2000). The children in our research showed a tendency to perform tasks individually,
especially in the task of generating ideas. Because our goal was to measure the collective
generativity of children, and not individual capabilities, teamwork was essential for the
generation of ideas and keywords. Furthermore, the moderator was entrusted with the
task of reconciling any disputes and finding the most representative opinion of the group.
As with groups of adults, there were several outspoken leaders among the children. An
impulsive child is a faster decision-maker but tends to make more errors than a thoughtful
child. Some of the younger children may be intimidated by the older ones and become
isolated from the decision-making process. In all cases, the moderator should facilitate the
group and give everyone an equal chance to contribute ideas.

(7) Education. While manipulating the toolkits, children learn to organise information.
A girl from grade five, for example, asked her friend if ‘sea’ belonged to ‘vacation’ and vice
versa. After a short discussion, they concluded that ‘vacation’ could go with other places
such as ‘mountain’ or ‘river’ and agreed to put ‘sea’ under ‘vacation’. This incident
suggests that the task of building information architecture helps a child learn the relations
between concepts or ideas. Moreover, while performing the task, a child acquires
knowledge because knowledge pertains to the acquisition of information and the
comprehension of relations. Working in teams stimulates competition and cooperation
between children and helps them develop social skills.

6. Discussion
On the basis of the experimental results, we have made several suggestions for designing
information architecture for children.
In designing information architecture for children, we should determine the degree of
logicality for an age-appropriate level of cognitive development. Hence, the depth of
information architecture should not be sacrificed for logicality. Information architecture
created by children is wider and shallower than the information architecture of Yahoo
190 J.-S. Baek and K.-P. Lee

Kids, indicating that the categorisation process of children tends to be less systematic than
that of adults. As mentioned earlier, the thinking of children, particularly with respect to
the creation of information architecture or the navigation of websites, is determined more
by knowledge association than by conventional logic. This phenomenon implies that
information architecture designed with an adult level of logic may lead to inefficient
navigation by children. Thus, the participation of children is essential in the design
process.
The children’s ambiguous categorisation of the contents left some information
belonging to more than one category. In several cases, children provided multiple routes to
a single destination. For example, ‘Tchaikovsky’ was located under the ‘Encyclopedia’
category as well as under the ‘Classical music’ category. In other words, children’s
information architecture was more flexible than adults’. According to Rosenfeld and
Morville (1999), navigation systems should have balance in flexibility and context. If a
hierarchical navigation system lacks flexibility, users are forced to move up and down the
tree structure of content hierarchy and navigation becomes inefficient. On the other hand,
if too many hyperlinks exist in a hierarchical navigation system, the system becomes too
complex and users are likely to get lost in the system. In the case of children’s information
architecture, the system tended to be more flexible than adults’. Because children are less
influenced by conventional logic and tend to think in a more creative and flexible way than
adults, we recommend that information architecture for children should be more flexible
than one for adults. One way to improve flexibility is to provide cross-listing and
associative links (Rosenfeld and Morville 1999). They suggest that navigational flexibility
can be improved by the use of cross-listing, i.e. by increasing the number of routes to a
destination, even if the clarity of content is diminished. At the same time, associative links
can facilitate navigation by providing children with a set of keywords associated with a
topic.

7. Limitations of the study

This study is based on the assumption that the children at the age from 8 to 12 understand
the notion of hierarchical information structure and that they can make one for
themselves. We verified this assumption by conducting a pilot test and in-depth interview
prior to the experiment. Besides, the fact that navigating a web directory is a reverse
process of building hierarchical information structure and that children use websites such
as Yahoo Kids without difficulty also implies that our assumption is valid. However, most
participants in the experiment were familiar with mind maps and had experience of visiting
Yahoo Kids, which we believe helped children understand the experiment better. It is not
known whether knowledge of mind maps or experience with web directories were
important factors for completing these tasks. Neither do we know how to explain the
concept of information hierarchy to children who lack such knowledge and experience.
Our future study will be on validating the suggestions we proposed in the discussion
session. We plan to design a website based on children’s information architecture and
compare it with Yahoo Kids by conducting a usability test.

8. Conclusion
A participatory design approach to information architecture design for children is effective
for determining the user needs because it enables designers to look at problems from a
child’s standpoint and, simultaneously, deals with childhood traits such as shyness and
 CoDesign 191

immature language skills. Rather than evaluating the usability of information architecture
with children as testers, we let children design information architecture for themselves as
designers and analysed the result. We developed two cognitive toolkits with which
children created information architecture and the output was compared to the
information architecture of Yahoo Kids directory. The comparison revealed that
the information architecture of children reflects their cognitive processes; children’s
information architecture is generally shallower and wider, and its content is more
ambiguous and contains more logical errors than that of Yahoo Kids directory. On the
basis of our results, we recommend that the logicality of information architecture for
children should be determined in accordance with the cognitive development of users.

Notes
1. Collective generativity is defined as stakeholders’ collective ability to generate or create what they
think or imagine.
2. Info Block and Info Tree are the trademarks protected by copyright.
3. Smilansky (1968, cited in Yoo 2000) divided play into ‘construction play’ and ‘socio dramatic
play’. In construction play, children create things with various materials such as blocks.

References
Axline, V., 1969. Play Therapy. New York: Balantine Books, 9.
Baek, J.S., 2003. Participatory design approach to interface design for children. Thesis (Masters),
pp. 42–53. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.
Buzan, T. and Buzan, M., 1996. The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize
Your Brain’s Untapped Potential. New York: Plume, 61–69.
Druin, A. ed., 1998. The Design of Children’s Technology: How we design and why? San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann, 55–56.
Druin, A., 2002. The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information
Technology, 21 (1), 1–25.
Hanna, L., Risden, K., and Alexander, K., 1997. Guidelines for usability testing with children.
Interactions, 5 (4), (September), 9–14.
Iverson, O.S., 2002. Designing with children: the video camera as an instrument of provocation.
Interaction Design and Children, 2002, 1, 73–81.
McNeal, J., 1992. Kids as Customer. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 42–146.
Rosenfeld, L. and Morville, P., 1999. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. 2nd ed.
Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, 111–112, 236, 327.
Sanders, E.B.N., 1999. Postdesign and participatory culture. In: Useful and critical: The position of
research in design, 9–11 September 1999, Tuusula, Finland.
Sung, K.W., Shin, H.K., and Kang, H.H., 2003. Participatory design process with concept
generation toolkit. Design Science Study, 16 (1), 73–82.
Yoo, H.S., 2000. Child Development. Seoul: Changjisa, 286–293.