Where do you go to stay smart in the kids interactive industry? What conferences keep you on top of your craft, while also helping you grow your network? What events are vital to attend to learn the latest trends? There are so many conferences these days which ones are right for you? Look no further, here’s a compiled conference list to get you started! It covers areas of the children’s interactive media business like toys, eBooks, video games, children’s television, apps, play, research, consumer products, and more. The list below covers most of the big US and international shows in 2015, and just a few important smaller events.

You can download a PDF copy of this list here. Let us know what you think. Which events do you attend? What speakers draw you to an event? If there’s an event that’s not on this list, and you think it’s important, please let us know in the comments below.

NOTE: Items highlighted in red indicate specifics about an event that have yet to be announced as of 11/10/2014.

The following is an article I wrote that appears in the November 2014 issue of Children’s Technology Review.

If we look at the amount of time a child has to enjoy being a child, it works out to something like 6, 753 days, or 157, 680 hours. Every hour of childhood is important, as is every second. Who knew, but milliseconds seem to matter as well. Engaging a child successfully in an interactive experience can boil down to what happens within a fraction of a second.

While working in the children’s interactive industry for many years, there’s one question I’m asked more than any other: “What is the single most important thing needed to successfully engage a child in an interactive experience?” In today’s world that means successful engagement through tablets and apps, of which there are many things to consider. Engaging characters, compelling stories, a strong game mechanic, lots of user testing, a willingness to change something for the better when developing, an understanding of child development and child related research. But that’s not where I start. These are all “must have” components of a successful interactive experience. So what’s the one item that will make or break your app? Responsivity.

It’s usually at this point the person asking the question says “Huh? What do you mean? Responsivity?” Even if the app includes all the must have items mentioned above, if the app does not respond immediately to a child’s request, usually in the form of a tap on a screen, your product is dead. It won’t be used. End of story. The time you have to successfully respond to a child’s request can be measured in milliseconds.

Let me share a recent article to help crystallize just how little time you have. I’ll reference a technology advance outside of the children’s industry. There have been some amazing discoveries in the virtual reality space in the last year. You know, those crazy headsets that cover your eyes and ears to deliver an otherworldly experience, be it on Oculus Rift or Morpheus.

The vision of this technology might one day deliver a mind blowing, life changing, “real” experience. Part of recent successes in this industry boil down to this:

a.) If a user makes a request through the technology (input),
b.) and the display in front of the person updates as quickly as possible (output),
c.) the more believable and enjoyable the experience.

However, with a slow update, the user will feel nauseous. Literally. This performance, or latency, can actually be measured. A response time longer than 30 milliseconds will make someone sick.

For years the virtual reality industry has been unable to break a performance speed below 60 milliseconds, and in the process of trying, has made a lot of virtual reality testers sick. The breakthrough is this industry will be when they bring the performance issue down to about 15 milliseconds, which some say is now within reach.

In reaching that goal, virtual reality designers have had to look at everything that causes latency: Computer processing speed, software, cables, accelerometers, display screens, … everything. (See background info in Wired for more)

Let’s put that in context to an interactive experience for a child. What are the ingredients that make up the response time of an app? Just like the discoveries found with the virtual reality example above, the same components are equally important here. Interactive responsivity can be simmered down to what hardware and software combinations you use.

Lets start with the hardware. We’re talking about tablets. Are all tablet technologies created equal? If you look at the responsivity of just the hardware component of a tablet surface alone, though the differences are small, it appears the response time of a tap is hardly equal across all devices. Have a look at how long a single tap takes to register through the hardware of a tablet:

(Note: A shorter response time is better. Source)

Okay, no big deal, right? We’re talking just a fraction of a second, and we’re not even measuring hardware latency from devices specifically targeted to children in toy stores, which by the way use cheaper (AKA slower) chips and tablet surface components.

Now we need to add in latency that is introduced from software. What software tools are being used to create apps for children? Most app-based software tools fall into one of two categories; native apps and non-native apps.

Native apps tend to be written with programming code that is “compiled.” Compiled code is translated into something a computer can understand at a machine level. Languages like C and C++ are compiled languages that tend to execute quickly.

Non-native apps may be created with a “wrapper”, something that can bundle together other kinds of “runtime” code, like JavaScript, HTML, and HTML5. Runtime code is not compiled. Runtime code reads like English, which is great for writing code quickly by humans, but not necessarily the best form to be understood quickly by computers. When this kind of code is executed at runtime, a tablet needs to interpret it, one line at a time, into something it can understand. Translating this runtime code on the fly is time consuming for any computing device, including tablets, and creates latency with a response back to the user.

When a tap or a swipe is sent to a native or non-native app, we’re still talking about a fraction of a second for this instruction to execute. However, just to put this in perspective, generally speaking, runtime code can take up to ten times longer to execute than compiled code depending on the processor being used. This can mean the difference between 2 and 20 milliseconds for a small number of lines of code to execute before the user receives a response. (Source 1, 2)

By now you may be doing some math in your head. Keep in mind, we’re still talking best possible scenario here. On top of all this hardware and software latency there’s the need to load assets (graphics, sound, video) in and out of memory. How memory management is handled can also add a lot of latency to an experience, more so for apps that download its content at runtime from the web as opposed to apps that bundle all of its content within the app locally. This is often where the difference between an experienced developer and an inexperienced developer pays off. Creating lean yet appealing art, animation, and audio is an art form, one that often adds to the benefit of “perceived” performance, and ultimately the end user’s experience. A talented developer also will know how to “mask” some of this latency, in a way that makes both the tablet’s processor, and the end user, very happy from a performance perspective.

So, do slow performing apps make kids sick? Maybe not literally like the virtual reality example cited earlier, but, many theorize that it can influence how engaged a child is in the experience. An app that is responsive can mean the difference between successfully engaging a child or making them not want to interact with an app at all. It can also influence your rating in CTR, which measures responsivity of every activity.

If you design products for children, immediacy is vital. Sluggishness can make you feel sick, and contribute to the death of an app.

[The following is an article I wrote that appeared on the Fred Rogers Center blog, March 18, 2014.]

It’s been quite a week in the children’s media world. While preparing for the week ahead last Sunday, I noticed an article on Huffington Post that was spreading virally through my friends on Facebook. The article was a call to ban all hand-held devices from children under the age of 12. Backing up the claim, the author cited a long list of research on why kids should not engage with screen media at all.

Unfortunately, she misread much of the research by making that cardinal error in research of confusing correlation with cause. For example, several studies have looked at ADHD and media use with children, and some have found a link between the two. But that doesn’t mean media causes ADHD. Maybe instead children who have been diagnosed with ADHD have a greater interest in media consumption, or there might be some third unknown factor that is the real root of the problem. This mistake is an all too often occurrence, especially with many sensational headline seeking journalists.

On top of this, she offered not a single mention of anything positive about screen media.

Shortly after the article was posted, two great responses to this piece were published. The first was by David Kleeman, Glenda Revelle and Jessica Taylor Piotrowski entitled 10 Reasons Why We Need Research Literacy, Not Scare Columns and the second was by Melinda Wenner Moyer of Slate called Hands Off My Kid’s iPad: A Huffington Post Blogger’s Shaky Case for Banning Hand-held Devices for Children. Both articles go through the original claims, piece by piece, and demonstrate what is wrong with the original argument.

While all of this was going on, a noteworthy voice from the children’s media research world, Dimitri Christakis, serendipitously published an opinion called Interactive Media Use at Younger Than the Age of 2 Years – Time to Rethink the American Academy of Pediatrics Guideline? You may be unfamiliar with Christakis’ work, but you probably know its impact. Years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a warning to parents that they should not allow their children under age 2 to engage in screen media use at all, and they should limit the screen time of children under age 3. Christakis’ earlier work helped shape this recommendation. In the meantime, parents who do let their children use their smartphone or tablet have been beating themselves up, feeling like terrible, horrible, no good, very bad parents.

Well, Christakis is now suggesting that there may very well be important differences between linear media use (also known as television) and interactive media (like apps that are used on smartphones and tablets.) While more research is still needed, his statement is a giant first step to recognizing that maybe, just maybe, smartphones and tablets can be a benefit to early learning in some circumstances.

With that said, parents reading this, please know that while not all screens are created equal, the same is true for interactive content. Not all apps for kids that claim they are helpful are good for your child. However, a smaller number of carefully and thoughtfully developed products, often ones that are guided by research and testing, can be of benefit to young children.

So how do you tell the difference? Here’s a few commonsense recommendations to help guide you:

[The following is an article I wrote for the Feb. 27, 2014 issue of KidScreen.]

I’m not a betting guy. But if you asked me to wager that this year’s crop of tech toys would be compelling, playful and desirable, I probably would have bet against you.

Historically, tech and play have not co-existed so well together in the toy world. In the past, numerous tech toy misses resulted in large financial losses as the emphasis was often placed incorrectly on technology at the expense of play. This includes a large cohort of apps created by toy companies over the last two years. But this year was different. At this month’s New York Toy Fair, apps had greater play appeal, any accompanying physical element was better integrated into the play experience, the tech was not forced and focus was appropriately placed on fun.

Common elements of the most successful tech toys often included the use of a digital camera, numerous sensors and in some cases even effective use of augmented reality. Gone are the days of the “watch me” toy, which are animatronic, robotic toys that are just no fun to watch. Also gone are products that relied on confusing second screens. Tech play for tech’s sake has been replaced with the motto “fun first, tech second.”

With that in mind, the following three newcomers have the potential to be serious trailblazers in the year ahead:

WikiBear by Commonwealth Toy (Video link)

This was the talk of the show. One simple way to describe WikiBear is by the nickname it earned at the show, Siri Bear. Imagine a child talking to WikiBear, asking it endless questions. “How far away is the moon?” “Who is the current president of the US?” “Where is the nearest library?” Ask WikiBear a question, any question, and it will provide an answer by scouring the web for a response. Narration from the bear has a friendly conversational tone, not a cold and clinical response. WikiBear relies on speech recognition technologies (a major challenge with children’s voices) and requires a live wireless web connection. It also uses a lot of back-end language and conversation smarts. WikiBear will be available in the fall and a suggested retail price has yet to be confirmed. However, Commonwealth believes it will be somewhere between $59.95 and $69.95. At this price, adults could even use WikiBear as an inexpensive therapist.

Ozobot by Evollve (Video link)

Ozobot is a small roving robot, about the size of a lime. It has a built-in optical reader on its base that not only follows a drawn line path on paper, or on a tablet, but it can also interpret different colored patterns. One set of colored dots can make Ozobot spin, another make it go faster, or slower, or flash its lights. In a sense, there is a tiny bit of programming fun the user can create by drawing each path with different colored dots. Six free single player and multiplayer game apps will be available at launch, which will be in August for a cost of $59.95.

Spy Gear Video Glasses (Video link)

Can’t see past the $1, 500 Google Glass price tag? Spin Master has released its own version called Spy Gear Video Glasses for just under $30. The device will let kids secretly capture up to 20 minutes of video or up to 2, 000 photos. These specs look a lot less geeky than Google Glass, and they are already available in stores.

Other noteworthy tech toys that were the topic of conversation at the show were a number of game-based learning apps by a Silicon Valley startup called Tangible Play. So too were block-like, robotic construction kits called MOSS by Molecular Robotics, whose creations can be controlled through an app. Fun, playful and inexpensive digital dice by eDiceToys caught my eye, as did a compelling fashion designer creativity kit and app called My Virtual Fashion Show by Crayola.

Now that the toy industry is starting to get the upper hand on digital play, you won’t have to wait until next year’s Toy Fair to see advances with tech toys or apps. Unlike Toy Fair in years past, advances with digital play will start to appear more frequently. I predict you will start to see new, innovative, tech toy products and apps announced again as early as next month.

[Scott Traylor is the founder and CEO of Boston-based 360KID, a digital development company specializing in creating interactive products for children as a service.]

[The following is an article I wrote for the Jan. 24, 2014 issue of KidScreen.]

Vicky Rideout during her survey presentation at the Cooney Center Breakthrough Learning Forum.

Media research reports are great for offering insights about an industry. They help media creators take stock in where they are today with their media creation efforts on different platforms, and they also provide ideas on how we can best serve an intended audience. At the same time, what is gained from a new study almost always leads to many more new questions that can’t immediately be answered.

That’s certainly the case with the latest Joan Ganz Cooney Center report entitled Learning at Home: Families’ Educational Media Use in America. According to Vicky Rideout, children’s media researcher and the report’s main author, this is the first time “we have tried to quantify, on a national basis, what portion of kids screen time is devoted to educational content.”

The report digs deep into parents’ thoughts on their child’s use of educational media across a number of different platforms. One big finding that will not be a big surprise to broadcasters: Television is still king when it comes to delivering educational content, even though access to alternative platforms like mobile, computers and videogames has increased greatly in recent years. Television is the preferred platform by a long shot for educational media. Granted, the television industry has also had decades more time, almost 50 years’ worth, of creating and delivering educational content to young children than its younger media platform relatives. Still, with the explosive growth of mobile, this data point begs the question if parents are aware of the educational opportunities available to them on other platforms?

Among the many insights offered, children engage with educational media less as they age. Two-to four-year-olds consume 1:16 (one hour and sixteen minutes) of educational media daily, dropping to 0:50 for five-to seven-year-olds, and further still to 0:42 for eight-to 10-year-olds. Even at this lower end for eight-to 10-year-olds, you could consider their educational media use as an added class of learning material each day. However, as a child ages they also spend more overall time consuming media, educational or not, to the point where eight to 10-year-old media usage almost doubles compared to that of two-to four-year-olds. Surprisingly, while this older group consumes less educational media content daily, their parents report seeing their child demonstration of “a particular action as a result of something they saw or did with educational media” more so than the younger age groups. This could very well be a cumulative effect of educational media use consumed over many years, but still, it’s striking data point in the research. One could strongly argue, this “particular action” is evidence of mastery of the educational content that is consumed.

Other noteworthy findings:

• Parents see a greater perceived learning impact in the areas of cognitive skills, reading, and math from educational media use but less impact with learning science or anything related to the arts.
• The greater a parent’s education, the less educational media is consumed.
• The greater the family’s income, the less educational media consumed.
• Hispanic/Latino households reports less “actions taken” from educational media use than Black or White families.

These are just a few of the many findings called out in this report. There’s also data on parent and child sharing in the educational media experience together (often referred to as “joint media engagement”) as well as findings on traditional book reading and eBook use.

With just these few items I’ve called out above, the report forces us to consider many big, unanswered questions:

• As children grow, why do they engage less with educational media, yet consume more media at the same time? Is there a need to create more engaging educational content for this age group than what is currently being offered?
• What is it that we’re doing wrong, or not doing at all, to better engage Hispanic/Latino families with educational media?
• Are parents less aware of the educational offerings available through mobile, computers and video games? If so, should we get behind a national awareness campaign to make ratings and reviews websites like Common Sense Media and Children’s Technology Review better known to parents?

Perhaps the biggest question raised in this report is whether educational media use, which appears to have great benefit at an early age, leads to greater media consumption that is of less benefit to children as they age?

Michael Levine, the executive director of the Cooney Center shares this report is the beginning of a larger conversation around educational media use. “There’s a lot of interest in having children view educational media, but less fulfillment of the wish as illustrated by this report, particularly for low income and Hispanic and Latino families, ” he says.

As media creators, it is imperative to understand what can be done to up our game in the educational media space, no matter what the delivery vehicle. Part of that entails informing parents about resources available to them today to help them find the best educational content broadcasters and software publishers have to offer. The Cooney Center as well as many other interested groups, foundations, and policy makers are already quickly working on the next new report, and latest research findings that will one day in the near future move the industry needle even further ahead, as well as create many more questions we’ve yet to imagine, as evidence by the volume of questions this report is sure to generate.

Additional video links:
1.) Vicky Rideout – Learning from Home report overview
2.) Michael Levine – Learning from Home report overview
3.) Playlist of all Learning from Home speakers
4.) The complete Learning from Home discussion (speakers with audience discussion)

[Scott Traylor is the CEO and founder of 360KID, a youth-focused organization that specializes in developing interactive content, apps, and games for broadcasters, publishers and organizations that wish to engage kids of any age.]