The research behind it
For each design choice we show what research suggests, what we decided, and what we still need to test with children. We keep these three apart on purpose.
Active, hands-on play
Apps support learning best when children are actively involved, engaged with the task, making meaningful connections and interacting with others.
Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015), Psychological Science in the Public Interest.Every activity starts with the child doing something: painting, building, choosing. No passive watching sections.
Which tasks feel meaningful to 3-year-olds versus 6-year-olds.
Manipulative design
Many apps for young children use design that pressures them to keep playing or to buy things, such as countdowns, lures and characters who get sad.
Radesky et al. (2022), JAMA Network Open.We don't use streaks, daily rewards, loot boxes or guilt. Stopping is always one tap away.
Whether our endings feel natural or abrupt to children.
Playing together
Children get more out of media when an adult plays, talks and asks questions alongside them.
Takeuchi & Stevens (2011), Joan Ganz Cooney Center.Games are built for turn-taking and showing, with simple prompts for an adult to join in.
How parents actually use the join-in prompts at home.
Our check before every design decision
- Does this help the child understand, create or explore?
- Can the child influence the pace and make their own choices?
- Does the sound, motion or reward add something to the play itself?
- Can the child pause without losing anything or feeling pressure?
- Is the solution understandable for the intended age?
- Is our claim research-backed, our own design choice, or something we still need to test?
We judge quality by how understandable a game is, how meaningful the choices are, whether frustration stays manageable and whether endings work. Longer playtime is not a quality goal.
Sources are shown as a starting point and will be reviewed by our research advisors before launch.