In and of itself, I'm  not sure that "pushing away on the buttons to see
what happens" is such a bad thing. It could be said that that is, after all,
what we're after. I'm also not sure that the problems are'nt the same for any
clever interactive, digital, electronic, mechanical, or chocolate.  I share the
concern...how do we create the conditions under which an exchange can take
place where the technology (of whatever flavor) is liberating in the play and
not entrapping.  My guess is that unless the desired results are really clear
and straightforward in the minds of the designers, than it makes no difference
if it's a computer or a lever that drives the device.
    The problem is that the computer needs so much more cash, and the technical
complexities are so much greater, that it is that much more difficult to resist
the temptation to load more and more stuff into the basket.  Plus, since so few
of us are trained enough to even stay awake through the minutiae of the project
(I'm among the first snoozers) we often loose track of our own agendas.
    We've all seen some real dogs of computer interactives. We've probalbly all
seen many more dogs of a "lower"technology.  Are the chances of success any
different simply because of the choice of tools? Of what other tools do we ask
"stay in the background"?
Aaron Goldblatt
[log in to unmask]