Although meeting safety standards and acknowledging country-specific, legislative issues represent two of the most major aspects of (industrial) toy designers, makers and marketers to think of, this paper focuses on the core aspects of toy design in terms of play value and does not discuss the aforementioned dimensions of design per se. In other words, the aim is to list and discuss (design) values that players of toys of different ages will consider as alluring in long-term play. This focus will leave out the consideration of organic play materials and their undeniable play value (for example, the stick, which has been inaugurated to The Strong National Museum of Play's National Toy Hall of Fame) . The main criteria for my definition of toy design here then, is that it is concerned with playthings created with the human mind and design-skills involved, and intended for a playing being (child, adult – or pet), and that it aims to create play value within the physical, digital or hybrid objects being designed.

Defining the"Toy"

Digital play scholars Zagalo and Branco [16, p. 13] define toys as objects designed for the act of play. Educational professionals Hassinger- Das et al. [3] take a more traditional perspective on the toy, by defining it as:"Any item that can be used for play [...], including formal toys that are manufactured such as dolls, or blocks, as well as everyday items that children transform into informal toys, such as a cardboard box used as a dollhouse" [3, p. 2]. In sum, in order for an object to be considered a toy, it must be a playable object. Conceptually, all toys are playable, but so are many other entities, such as the aforementioned stick. Therefore, it is best to revise this notion into the following: Although many objects can and may be played with, toys are designed mainly as objects intended to be used in play. Consequently, and this constitutes the first design universal for toy design, is that it aims at the creation of playable objects that are toys.

In my earlier research I have sketched the dimensions of the toy experience as follows: Toys are usually physical, fictive, functional and affective entities [5]. In other words, toys are:

• Physical: the toy's tangible materiality is accessed through multisensory engagement with the toy.

• Fictive: the toy's narrative element e.g. backstory is communicated through its identity and'personality', its connection to other media products (transmedia storytelling) and enables players' to become a fan of the toy.

• Functional: toys have mechanical and (increasingly) technological functionality, and they can be played as open-ended playthings (without instructions) or with rules of engagement in a game-like manner.

• Affective: after the firsthand excitement of discovering a new toy, it invites to emotional engagement with it, designing for attachment, pleasure and joy.

While the difference between physical, three-dimensional playthings such as plush toys considered by many as'traditional toys', and for example, digital games played with smartphones, consoles and other gaming devices, is clear cut, the conceptual landscape for what is to be understood as a toy versus a game, are continuously blurring. For instance, with recent development of so-called smart, connected toys, such as the Internet of Toys (or, IoToys, for references see e.g. [8]) three-dimensional toy characters are indeed, gaming devices for rule-bound interaction at the same time they represent huggable and posable'toy friends'. In this way, the products of play refer to playthings comprehensively: toys, games and hybrids toyified games or gamified toys, technologically enhanced 3D toys or toys/games with an interactive, digital component, and thematically hybrid play products. Despite the concept of the toy which is undergoing a transformation from the purely physical into the increasingly digital, it is notable how even the'toys' that are played through a screen include first a physical device (smartphone, tablet, television, camera, or game console) and second, require physical manipulation of this device (through either"swipe, tap and/or tilt") [7].

Given, that we now have an idea about how the toy, as a concept for playable design, can be approached from multiple perspectives, and that it always entails manipulation of some kind, we will move on to explore the dimensions of use of the toy a designer must ask in order to ensure (and envision) that the plaything is purposeful (that it can be played with in many ways). Based on the theoretical threads collected through various sources, I have compiled a list of important questions toy designers should ask when working with a new design: 1. What kind of play does the toy design correspond to? 2. Who is the toy design meant for? 3. Does the design of the toy convey play value?

From Playable Objects to Ludic Interaction

Let us now turn to examine these questions in more detail. Toys are functional in two senses: First, they are functional if they can be used to play. Second, they should have different functions that can be employed in play. Hassinger-Das et al. [3] list four points in reference to the toys functionality: the toy can: a) encourage physical activity, b) foster social interactions, c) serve as representations of other objects, and d) allow creative expression."Toys are tools for encouraging different kinds of play". Moreover, they can encourage three types of play: 1) pretend play, 2) object play, and 3) physical play [3, p. 2; p. 5].

First and foremost, when designing for play, although designing playable objects, one is actually designing for ludic interaction. Toy designer educator Mathieu A. Gielen says:"If you want to design a toy, you start by designing an activity" [2]. To design an activity, again, is to formulate, and to give form to affordances, or action possibilities for the toy. Fundamentally, a toy designer must design for playability. As this seems self-evident, it needs further consideration. What is it in a toy that calls out for action?

Toy play means ludic interaction with and through toys that may happen through solitary play (playing with the toy alone), or social toy play (playing with the toy in the company of other players by for example sharing the toy). Whereas the interaction with the other players may happen either by sharing a physical toy, digital content mediated by the toy (as is the case e.g. in the new Internet of Toys kind of connected,'smart' toys), the interaction between the player and the toy always involves physical manipulation of some kind. The most central of these functions are the following two: The toys abilities to encourage physical engagement with the plaything to offer ideas on how to play alone or in the company of others, and the ways in which toys are able to inspire the players' imagination and creativity.

21st Century Ecosystem of Play

In play the tool of the toy must fit its user [6, p. 93]. The user of any toy is a player. Players represent all age groups and gender, and are involved in the ecosystem of play, inhabited by besides a wide range of playthings, also the industries of play, and the social media platforms (physical and digital) that allow sharing and spectating of play. All the generations playing, who have access to digital technologies and communication platforms may eventually use these for play. Today, various screens (televisions, smartphones and tablets are functioning as toys [3]. For instance, the change in communication technologies has also resulted in playing with toys being documented with mobile devices while playing [7]. In other words, technology lets players extend the play patterns associated with traditional, three-dimensional and physical toys to digital and social playscapes. The nature of contemporary object-based play is thus hybrid play [7].

Digital natives [14], a contested term also adopted by the toy industry as a parallel to"Millennials" or"Generation Z", describes a generation which has always been surrounded with connected devices and social media, and for whom ways of acting and being in the social world are framed by their experiences with technology. In fact, what is also of interest to the toy industry today, is to understand how to capture and deliver novel experiences to this generation, which is also referred to as the"Smartphone Generation" in an industry publication [15]. In contrast, mature players who have not been born to a world where communication is largely channeled by digital media, are called'digital immigrants'.

Toys should be inclusive, and so should toy design: Individual toy designers as well as the industries of play [6] should think of playthings in a much broader sense. This wide perspective should not only consider the human child as a consumer of toys, but think of toy play as an activity that is of interest to both children and adults and play as a form of behavior that again today, takes place between generations – between children and their parents, grandparents, caretakers and teachers – in the name of transgenerational play. Moreover, toy play of the contemporary kind may manifest as"inter-species" [13], that is, they toy play between humans and their pets.

In sum, quality toy design has no age, nor'species': What is designed for children in terms of playthings usually works well for adults too. Nevertheless, it is possible to consider the toy play of children and the one od adults to represent nuanced differences in regards to ways of playing: On the one hand, adults who are most often labelled as'collectors' of toys, dedicate time and resources to alter the dimensions of singular toys for example through customizing, cultivating them through storytelling and displaying them as a part of domestic environments design. On the other hand, children often play more spontaneously with multiple toys during a play session and are not as keen in developing the toys' physical appearance as adults. A common thread, a play pattern that unites players of different ages

is nevertheless the storytelling with toys, which is based as much on real, everyday events as well as purely fantastic scenarios drawing inspiration from other media and the imagination. What then, is it that aspires and sustains a players' interest in terms of toy design? Two key terms are the quality of design and play value the toy conveys, which will elaborated next.

The Concept of'Play value'

Most designers aspire to create new toys that communicate top quality on many levels. Quality is a goal much referred to in any types of design, but what does it mean when considering toys? Mathieu A. Gielen, a toy design educator, lists three major concepts that greatly influence toy quality and that are challenging for toy design students to grasp: aimlessness, empathy and play value. While aimlessness and empathy require a thorough theoretical discussion that cannot be developed further in the scope of this paper, I will go on by examining and further discussing the concept of play value in terms of designing new toys.

Toys should be playable, in other words, they should have good functionality, for example, be versatile (and in this way allow opportunities for long-term play), instructive, and comprehensible [9]. Stephen Kline lists the most useful measures on play value as the toy's attractiveness (based on whether children voluntarily choose it in tests) and the length of time the children would play with it in free play (fascination) [10, p. 175]. Kudrowitz and Wallace compliment this set of criteria with the amount and variety of play [11, p.1]. In earlier research, I have suggested that play value may result from the following dimensions: aesthetics, simplicity, versatility, pleasurability, fun/amusement, educational potential, safety, durability, age appropriateness, ergonomics of use, and sustainability [6, p. 135]. These dimensions may be further divided into objective and subjective play value, which may both be tested: Objective play value theoretically, in terms of the toy design itself and subjective play value empirically in terms of the interaction it generates once tested with players.

Play value, together, is built on these factors and further, the dimensions of the toy experience as explained earlier. Moreover, play value manifests in the use of the toy, alongside the relationship the player builds up with the toy. Furthermore, play value, as the word says, is created in combination with the affordances given to the toy by its designer and the manipulation and meaning conducted by the player. The dimensions of the play experience can be viewed by looking at the stages of toy play, which I have suggested to be wow, flow, double- wow, and glow [6; 4]. The presumption is that a toy with an outstanding play value will endorse a wow effect."Wow" is the unexpected, the surprising element of something that has not been done before" [6, p. 83]. Once utilized in play, the toy gives the player a secondary wow (or, a'double-wow'), which results in an experience of flow. Popular play patterns are used to cultivate, and in this way, add value to the toy in play: when the player has creatively played with the toy, it has gained an additional value, namely glow.

Toy Design Universals: Play Value in Toy Use

The play value of toys emerges most probably from a combination of different facets. To test the list design universals I will illustrate how the design universals for the 21st century toy design as suggested in the paper, may be used to evaluate a toy's design. Let us use the example of perhaps what is one of the most universal character toys in the world, the teddy bear, the world's first mass-marketed toy [12] . The teddy as a universal example of a designed object responds to the elemental questions every toy designer must ask: 1. What kind of play does the toy design correspond to? 2. Who is the toy design meant for? 3. Does the design of the toy convey play value?

The teddy bear is a playable object intended for players of all ages. As a popular and universally known toy that is over one hundred years old, the play value of the toy seems validated. To investigate the example further, a more thorough analysis is needed: This will be done through inspection of dimensions of the toy experience as presented in the paper.

The dimensions of the'teddy bear experience' could be formulated as follows. Its physical aspect is strong; its materiality, starting from the texture, the compactness or'slouchy' nature together contribute to its playability: huggability, poseability and displayability on the bed or sofa are important dimensions. Its fictive, or (transmedially) narrative dimension is vast, considering the associations that can be made: the'original' backstory of Theodor Roosevelt and simultaneous development of the teddy bears in Germany, fictive bears e.g. Winnie the Pooh, Paddington, the evil bear from The Toy Story film;'designer toy bears' with adult appeal like Mori Chuck's reinterpretation of the teddy bear with Gloomy Bear, and more recently, the TED bear from a film with the same name, and the Rilakkuma bear from Asia. This dimension also encompasses the player generated personality beginning from the name given to the toy. Conceptually, the functionality of the teddy bear has to do with how it is playable in pretend play, object play and physical play. Nowadays, through the Internet of Toys-related playthings the teddy bear is also technologically functional when it mediates play content through robotics and connectedness. Finally, the'teddy bear experience' may be considered as an affective experience, as the toy most often persuades attachment and invites emotional engagement to bond with the toy (through for example cuteness and vulnerable expressions).

Below, the different dimensions that constitute the Toy Design Universals are collected in Table 1.

The elemental questions for toy design, the dimensions of the toy experience, the aspects of play value (both objective and subjective), and finally, the dimensions of the play experience in the mind of the designer and in the use of the player:

Discussion

At several occasions during my career as a toy scholar, I have been approached in order to give suggestions about possible source texts in relation to toy design. Unfortunately, these kinds of materials are still relatively scarce and hard to find even within academia. By consulting the texts I have managed to find from a kaleidoscope of sources found in many parts of the world and academically, in different disciplinary realms, I realized that a compilation of design universals could be a useful starting point for many young scholars to start their explorations in toy design. In this paper I have attempted to outline, motivate and discuss what I call"Toy Design Universals for the 21st Century".

Kudrowitz and Wallace have wisely stated that"a toy is in the mind of the child, a toy product is in the mind of the designer" [11]. This paper has not discussed contextually specific affordances of toys, nor the different ways children, as the traditional players view the toy, versus the toy designer's various conceptions of what constitutes a toy. On the contrary, I focused on the universality of toys. In her article about making toys for a global market, Kathleen Alfano claims that a good toy is basically good around the world because of the universality of basic play patterns (e.g. playing with a hula hoop or a yo-yo) [1, p. 23]. Yet, when a toy is designed to a mass-marketed product, the question about the target group, the knowledge about the area of sales and the strategies of marketing become elemental. That is to say, the core of good quality toy design could succeed globally, but could equally fail because of other things such as packaging, marketing, point of sales, etc. This demonstrates how well-executed toy design is still not a complete product unless it has been'packaged' accurately. However, most questions regarding evaluating a toy design's potential to succeed may be solved by testing.

Conclusion

To conclude, the'Toy Design Universals' outlined in this paper represent a first'think piece' in how toy design could be approached in straightforward terms. While this contribution only serves toy design from the viewpoint of a conceptual framework, it is needed to evaluate every toy design project carefully based on its aims, target group and possible market, not to mention the right raw materials, aesthetics and timeliness in terms of competition and trends. Simultaneously, toy designers should at the same time strive to newness, meaning fresh approaches, and cater to universal play needs with appealing designs. Finally, although aiming at'wow' in new toys is considered important, perhaps even more important is to think of sustainable toy experiences with the flow, double-wow, and glow factors in mind, and in this way, design toys with long-term play value in terms of their physicality, functionality, and fictionality. If these dimensions of the toy experience are thoroughly considered and integrated well into the toy's design, they will ultimately contribute to the affective bond to become created between the player and the toy. I wish the exploratory paper at hand will work as an initial (and therefore unfinished) treasure map of sorts to guide the first steps of the way in this process towards new discoveries in both theoretical and practical approaches to toy design.

Acknowledgements

Writing this paper would not have been possible without previous authors in toy cultures and toy design. I would like to thank the late Brian Sutton-Smith for all toy and play research, and for donating his archives to the Brian Sutton-Smith Archives at The Strong National Museum of Play. Moreover, I would like to express my gratitude to fellow ITRA (International Toy Research Association members Dr. Toy Stevanne Auerbach, Barry Kudrowitz, Mathieu Gielen and Remi Leclerc, who have all contributed greatly to how I view toys as playthings and who have allowed me to deepen my perspectives on toy design. Also, I want to thank Yoav Ziv at Shenkar College of Design in Tel Aviv for inviting me to the inspiring From Rags to Apps Conference twice.

Toy Design Universals

Evaluation: Example of the teddy bear

Table 1. Exemplifying the application of Toy Design Universals in evaluating a toy design

References

1. Alfano, Kathleen (1996)"Making Toys for a Global Market". In Berg, Lars-Erik, Nelson, Anders, Svensson, Krister (Eds.) Toys in educational and sociocultural context. Toy research in the late twentieth century. Part 1. Selection of papers presented at the International Toy Research Conference, Halmstad University, Sweden, June 1996, 21-31.

2. Gielen, Mathieu A. (2008) Design for Children's Play and Learning. Reader. ID5182, TU Delft, Faculteit Industrieel Ontwerpen, January 2008.

3. Hassinger-Das, Brenna, Zosh, Jennifer, M, Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy & Roberta Michnick Golinkoff (2017)"Toys". In Pepper, Kylie (Ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Out-of-School Learning. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

4. Heljakka, Katriina (2017) Contemporary Toys, Adults, and Creative Material Culture: From Wow to Flow to Glow. In A. Malinovska and K. Lebek (Eds.), Materiality and Popular Culture. The Popular Life of Things. Routledge, 237–249.

5. Heljakka, Katriina (2018)"Dimensions of the Toy Experience" Analysis Workshop II: Hybrid Money Games and Toys. In Paavilainen, Janne; Heljakka, Katriina; Arjoranta, Jonne; Kankainen, Ville; Lahdenperä, Linda; Koskinen, Elina; Kinnunen, Jani; Sihvonen, Lilli; Nummenmaa, Timo; Mäyrä, Frans; Koskimaa, Raine & Suominen, Jaakko (eds.) Hybrid Social Play Final Report. TRIM Research Reports 26, Faculty of Communication Studies, University of Tampere, 16–18. Retrieved from: http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/103277/978-952-03-0751-6.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

6. Heljakka, Katriina (2013) Principles of adult play (fulness) in contemporary toy cultures. From Wow to Flow to Glow. Doctoral dissertation. Aalto University publication series, 72/2013.

7. Heljakka, Katriina (2016)"Strategies of Social Screen Players across the Ecosystem of Play: Toys, games and hybrid social play in technologically mediated playscapes." Wider Screen 1-2, 2016. Retrieved from: http://widerscreen.fi/numerot/2016-1-2/strategies-social-screen-players-across-ecosystem-play-toys-games-hybrid-social-play-technologically-mediated-playscapes/

8. Heljakka, Katriina & Ihamäki, Pirita (2018, June)"Preschoolers Learning with the Internet of Toys: From Toy-Based Edutainment to Transmedia Literacy". Seminar.net, Vol. 14, No. 1, 85-102.

9. Keskinen, Teemu (2006)"Lelu ei ole leikin asia" [A toy is nothing to play with] Satakunnan Kansa, 28.8.2006, 15.

10. Kline, Stephen (1995) Out of the Garden: Toys and Children's Culture in the Age of TV Marketing. Verso.

11. Kudrowitz, Barry, M. & Wallace, David, R. (2008)"The Play Pyramid: A Play Classification and Ideation Tool for Toy Design." International Journal of Arts and Technology 3(1): 36-56.

12. Leclerc, Remi (2008)"Character Toys: Toying with Identity, Playing with Emotion". Paper presentation at Design and Emotion Conference, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 6th-9th October 2008.

13. Pennell, Greta and Pennell, J.R. (2018, July)"Going to the dogs: A growing trend in Toyland." Paper presented at the International Toy Research Association, Paris France.

14. Prensky, Marc (2005) Digital Natives: how they think differently. Retrieved from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/digitalnatives//start.htm .

15. Spirit of Play, The Global Toy Magazine (2018) Was kann die Spielwarenbranche der Smartphone-Generation bieten? 24–27. 16. Zagalo, Nelson, and Pedro Branco (Eds.) Creativity in the Digital Age. London: Springer Verlag.

Katriina Heljakka — Toy researcher holds a post-doctoral position at University of Turku (digital culture studies) and continues her research on toys and the visual, material, digital and social cultures of play in the Academy of Finland project Centre of Excellence in Game Culture Studies. katriina.heljakka@utu.fi