'Reverse Alarm Clock' keeps the kids in bed so you can party

Three cheers for Professor John Zimmerman, who's finally doing some research to benefit Joe Public, and who has invented a device that lets parents sleep in late and put the kids to bed early on those long summer days. Zimmerman, of Carnegie Mellon's School of Design and Human-Computer Interaction Institute (and probably a parent himself), designed the so-called 'Reverse Alarm Clock' to give the tykes a visual representation of their expected schedule; when the clock's 'Sky Display' shows a sun, young children know they're free to roam about the house, but when a moon and stars appear, they'd better not get out of bed lest the boogie monster devour them whole. So far the system -- which uses a parent-set sunrise and moonset calculator, and also features a "Treasure Chest Music Selector" to pleasantly awaken your own little treasures -- doesn't seem to be commercially available, which is kind of a shame, because we know more than a few people who would love to trick their tiny terrors into bedtime at five o'clock on the daily.

[ph @ May 11th 2007 1:16PM]

And how is this better than simply telling your kids to go to bed?

[nashih @ May 13th 2007 10:11PM]

A more in depth description of this product in another article:
http://www.centredaily.com/129/story/92458.html



Motivation for the reverse alarm clock Many researchers have reported on the stress
experience by dual income families in both US and Europe.

A study of dual-income parents in the UK found themselves repeatedly telling their children to hurry in the morning rush, consequently starting the day on the wrong tone because the consternation they feel towards their own behavior. From [Beech, S., Geelhoed, E., Murphy, R., Parker, J., Sellen, A. & Shaw, K., Lifestyles of working parents: Implications and opportunities for new technologies. HP Tech report HPL-2003-88 (R.1) (2004)]

Our research, which included interviews with 12 dual-income families in Pittsburgh about their wakeup experience, found that many young children after leaving their cribs interrupted their parents’ sleep by getting out of bed at night. Reported in at the 2006 Ubicomp conference [Scott Davidoff, Min Kyung Lee, John Zimmerman, Anind Dey (2006): Principle of Smart Home Control. Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Springer: 19-34.]

We conducted a lab study with 6 parents from dual-income families to assess how well our clock
integrates into their bedtime and wakeup routines.
During this evaluation we got confirmation that children getting out of bed at night was a real
problem, and we learned that most families wanted to test our product in their homes to see if it would help keep their children in bed. Reported in a paper to be published at DPPI 2007 (Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces)

[Preston @ May 11th 2007 1:19PM]

I thought it was "John Q. Public", not Joe?

[CharlieX @ May 11th 2007 1:34PM]

Here's a cheapest and more eco-friendly solution: shackle the little rats to their beds until you've had plenty of sleep. Who needs computers?

[NiGhTmArE @ May 11th 2007 2:09PM]

Cheaper yes, legal... Doubtful.

[CharlieX @ May 11th 2007 1:34PM]

Here's a cheaper and more eco-friendly solution: shackle the little rats to their beds until you've had plenty of sleep. Who needs computers?

[Loban @ May 11th 2007 1:38PM]

Why would the kids obey this thing any more than their parents?

[mikey @ May 11th 2007 2:10PM]

that's great. unless the kid looks out the window.

[mazola @ May 11th 2007 2:23PM]

I'm gonna guess Professor John Zimmerman *doesn't* have kids.

Good luck with that idea, though. Maybe you can patent it now and sue Apple later for some quick cash.

[jonathan @ May 11th 2007 2:34PM]

I think this is a rather disgusting idea. How much more do we need to encourage parents to NOT parent their children?

[rich @ May 11th 2007 2:50PM]

yes, totally disgusting. i'm sure your 'two children' have never come into the bedroom at 5:30 am when you're trying to sleep.

maybe when they get older and they learn to tell the time (and consequently, what time is an appropriate time to get out of bed and wander around the house), you can call clocks or wristwatches a disgusting idea too.

[jonathan @ May 11th 2007 3:58PM]

First, why did you put "two children" in quotes like that? Do you question their existence? I have a 7yr old and a 14 month old, and can provide pictures in case you do. At the moment I am a single stay-at-home dad while my wife is deployed to Iraq. I was able to separate from the Air Force with a severance bonus (they needed people out to buy more airplanes).

Second, watches don't have any other purpose than displaying time (disregarding chronos and timers and alarms and such). This device has the express purpose of keeping your children away from you because you want more sleep, at least as presented in this article. That is a rather selfish aim at this point, because when a child needs you, the child should not be shunned simply so you can get more rest. You can get more rest through time-management, napping with your children (when able), etc. Your child is the priority, not you.

The fundamental issue I am addressing here is emotional health. Emotional well-being is absolutely necessary in producing a well-balanced adult from your child. This changes as the child ages and is dealt with differently, but at younger ages, the child needs the environment and emotional comfort in unconditional terms. If your child needs you, or feels that they need you, no matter what time of day, they should have access to you. To deny them that access is what I call disgusting. This creates the foundation on which the element of trust from the child to the parent flourishes. If that foundation does not exist, the child will be emotionally isolated and this will likely continue on into adulthood. If the child is not old enough to be self-disciplined (also a goal of the parent) enough to keep themselves from wandering the house, then the child can be restricted with a crib or the house itself can me made child-safe, eliminating the need to restrict the child.

My 7 year old gets into bed with us EVERY SINGLE MORNING. Her alarm is set 15 minutes before we get our morning routine started. She has an emotional need for this, and it has waned over the years, but there is not reason to prevent this. At this age she now understands the need for her parents to sleep, and is hardly a disturbance. She gets the emotional satisfaction and fulfillment (which goes both ways, btw) and will be more secure in herself because we are demonstrating complete acceptance of her. She still also regularly asks us to lay down with her while she goes to sleep, or to spend time in the bathroom with her while she is showering. Why is this? Children simply have an emotional need for the people they trust most (their parents) to demonstrate a willingness to set themselves aside for them. That is the definition of parental love in simplest form.

Every time I put my 14 month old to sleep, it is with me laying down with him in bed. Again, his emotional needs and desires come before my desires to have more time for myself or to get things done.

So why should we keep our kids away from us to the detriment of their emotional health? To get another hour of sleep each day? To keep them from getting into the cabinets? Seriously, are we that selfish? Yes, our kids will be able to function, but if the goal is to be the best parents we can be, why short-circuit the process with a device that is clearly purposed towards denying children what they want to give parents what they want. I think those priorities are incorrect.

[jonathan @ May 11th 2007 2:34PM]

oh yeah, and I have two children, for credibility.

[Nate @ May 11th 2007 3:05PM]

Erm...jonathan, you have children for credibility? Was the second one just to prove that the first child wasn't a fluke?

[jonathan @ May 11th 2007 4:00PM]

LOL, that's awesome! No, just to provide credibility for the previous comment (also made by me) since you can't edit comments. How many people post in places like this without the credibility to back up their statements?

[DaveTheWave @ May 11th 2007 2:48PM]

Can I beta test it?

[Matt B @ May 11th 2007 2:55PM]

My kids bow to no clock. They don't care what time it is. If they are up, guess who else is.

[DrBear @ May 11th 2007 3:07PM]

An even better solution...DON'T HAVE KIDS! I can't believe how many people just crap out a litter of brats simply because they've been conditioned since birth to do it.

You know how people say after a certain age you just can't remember what it's like to be young? That's because they have kids. Squirting out a bunch of ungrateful monkeys will make you old WAY before it's time.

I'm 41, very happily married...NO KIDS. I can spend my Sundays sitting on the couch in my underwear if I want, or bang my wife on the kitchen floor at noon (...and I do). No screaming kids, no puke-stained carpets, no crap filled diapers, and no smart-assed teenagers getting knocked up at 14 or telling me what a lousy father I was.

CHILDREN ARE EXTREMELY OVERRATED!
Buck the trend, go against the brain washing!
Enjoy YOUR life! Don't waste it trying to teach an ungrateful little version of yourself how to live theirs.

[Mike @ May 11th 2007 3:15PM]

I refer you to the scene from Idiocracy which is relevant to your post....

[Dave @ May 11th 2007 4:10PM]

That's really why all those straight people hate us gay couples... they're jealous.

[greg @ May 11th 2007 3:52PM]

if that was you think about kids you dont deserve one or mabye even a wife. Kids act how they are brought up.

I do see what you mean about having relaxing weekends and some people dont want kids and thats fine but everykid is not a brat and having sex at the age of 14.

[DorianGray @ May 11th 2007 3:52PM]

@DrBear

Dude, the only way I can get back at this craphole universe is to leave a trail of whiney, suckass brats in my wake...

[Bill @ May 11th 2007 3:53PM]

Damn DrBear you are bitter! Hope your wife doesn't see your post! And I hope you keep your kitchen floor really clean... Jeezz.

[DrBear @ May 11th 2007 4:02PM]

I get what you're saying about "Idiocracy". I LOVED that movie.

The thing is, i'm 41. I'll be dead in 30 or 40 years. I won't be here. I have no kids to be worried about. If the world screws everything up (...and they will) and becomes populated by idiots, they deserve it.

I won't be here to see it and I don't have any kids to suffer through it.

SCREW 'EM.

[Mark @ May 11th 2007 10:31PM]

@DrBear

Too bad your parents didn't think like you.

[Roosevelt Franklin @ May 13th 2007 1:22PM]

DrBear,
That was a very well insightful and cogent argument against having children.

It's too bad you weren't around 42 years ago to convince your parents of that same argument.

[Jiffylush @ May 11th 2007 3:23PM]

My kids both have really cool devices called windows to let them know if it is day or not. One in each of their rooms.

If they get up in the middle of the night it isn't to get up and eat or watch tv, it is to climb in bed with us and sleep.

[SHoe @ May 11th 2007 4:37PM]

Ahhh - the myth of happiness through reproduction. Not enough is mentioned about this since the unspoken implication is that OUR parents would not have children if they had to do it again. I am talking about the infamous Ann Landers survey in the 70s that asked the question "If You Had It To Do Over Again—Would You Have Children?"

Ready for the answer? It's not a scientific survey, but over 10,000 people responded, and 70% of them said "No". That's right folks: 70% of the parents in the survey said that they would not have children again if they could turn back time.

Read the original article and about the subsequent shame the parents felt in giving their answers:

http://www.happilychildfree.com/ann.htm

I bet most people do not know this and if they realized, they wouldnt have kids! But they don't know this because of course, their parents and their friends who are parents are never going to admit it.

[mike @ May 11th 2007 5:24PM]

Does this work for adults?

I'd like to be able to go to bed early and sleep late

[sugahunydewdrop @ May 11th 2007 5:37PM]

oh boy...I know it must be really annoying for the childless by choice to be chastized by holier than thou parents but don't you think some of you are laying it on rather thick with the overcompensation? kids are not for everyone and I'm glad everyone doesn't have them but damn. don't try to make it seem like I'm a sheep or missing out on the joys of "living MY life" because I not only chose to have a child but really enjoy being a parent.

yes yes yes - sometimes my daughter is a pain in the butt. but honestly, my job keeps me from living my life the way I want way moreso then she does. and my boyfriend, my boss, my parents, and my friends get on my nerves more than she does as well. I'm raising her right so I actually enjoy my life more knowing I'm responsible for her existence. and she's really cute too which does my ego good.

DrBear: "crap out a litter of brats", "ungrateful monkeys", "screaming kids...puke-stained carpets...crap-filled diapers". haha, okay we get it, you hate kids. I might just be more happy you don't have children then YOU are...you just might be the type of person who kills their kids cause they "just can't handle it!" and blames a fictional minority for it to the press.

SHoe: oh come on now...do you really think that if more people saw a rhetorical survey conducted on 10,000 americans forty years ago they would just all of a sudden up and change their minds about having kids? seriously? that sounds like flawed logic. many people have kids because they want to...and you're kind of pompous for implying that because you read some article you somehow have this glowing golden knowledge that so many poor unfortunate parents missed out on. silly rabbit.

OH and for the record: I have no problem with this invention but my daughter wouldn't give a shit about whether she saw a sun or a moon if she was ready to wake up.

[sugahunydewdrop @ May 11th 2007 5:37PM]

hypothetical survey, rather. I've been at work 8 hours, my brain has ceased functioning.

[Andrew H. @ May 11th 2007 5:41PM]

great idea until the kids grow up and learn how to work it on the parents

[James @ May 11th 2007 5:44PM]

Shoe: of course 70% of people back in the 70s wouldn't have kids again -- they were selfish assholes about everything else, so why wouldn't you expect them to be selfish assholes about kids? Having a kid demands sacrifice, and the fucking Me Generation didn't want to take time out from hitting their damn bongs to change a diaper. That's a shocker.

There are people (like DrBear) who shouldn't have kids, and thankfully made appropriate choices on the matter. I'm not saying I'm better than you because I want to have kids -- no more than I'm better than anybody because of the career path I chose. Some people have the drive and skill set, and some people are good at other things.

I just think it's a bit rich of DrBear to try to tell *everybody* not to have kids because life is easier that way. If people did everything because it's easy, we wouldn't have any cancer drugs (research is hard), or master violinists (practice is hard), or Marines ('nuff said).

So, bottom line: sure, be honest and tell people that kids are a lot of work. But tell them about how rewarding it is to have a big family you love and who loves you back. The last thing this country needs is to talk everybody who's here now out of having kids -- 'cause you're not going to talk the Middle Eastern and Central-/South-American immigrants out of it, and I'd rather not be in a minority demographic when I'm 60. Look at Europe -- they can show us what happens when a country's native population stops breeding, and it's not pretty.

[ethana2 @ May 11th 2007 6:02PM]

...And, ladies and gentlemen, the answer to "How many idiots does it take to get to this awkward a conversation from something relatively benign?" : One, naturally.

My solution is this: give your kids internet access so they don't have to rely on boring old you for everything. Stop being so afraid of it already. As long as they don't misspell URL's, nothing will jump out at them they aren't looking for, usually. Google's good for that, too. Besides, if you don't mind a little fascism, you can always install a filter. Or log their page requests. Or both. If security is a concern, well, I'll help you move to Linux. Here: [e-mail]

[Andy @ May 11th 2007 6:17PM]

This has been thought of and done before, don't give this guy _any_ credit what s ever.

Argos ( www.argos.co.uk ) used to sell a clock that was a shaped like a bunny, it's easier where up in the day and down at the night so your kids knew when they where allowed to get up. Can't seem to find it now though.

[Andy @ May 11th 2007 6:23PM]

I meant to say:
it's ears where up in the day and down at the night

(I should not write things late at night).

[KC @ May 11th 2007 6:52PM]

When the kids figure out that funny noises come from the parent's bedroom when they see the moon out.... Hahahah!

[M @ May 11th 2007 7:25PM]

Much too much pressure on people having kids to be perfect parents. Much to much pressure on people to have kids in the first place. Too many opinions that have owners that need to share them. Basically, If you want kids then have them, if not then don't. Just keep your noses out of everyone else's decisions.

[Guillermo @ May 12th 2007 3:02PM]

It's funny to see Mr. Air Force concerned about the "emotional health" of other human beings. I guess participating in an invading and occupation force in another country half a world away doesn't affect the "emotional health" of any other human being, huh?.

I guess Iraquis are not human, then.

[nashih @ May 13th 2007 9:33PM]

A more in depth description of this product:
http://www.centredaily.com/129/story/92458.html

[nashih @ May 13th 2007 9:40PM]

Motivation for the reverse alarm clock
Many researchers have reported on the stress experience by dual income families in both US and Europe.

A study of dual-income parents in the UK found themselves repeatedly telling their children to hurry in the morning rush, consequently starting the day on the wrong tone because the consternation they feel towards their own behavior. From [Beech, S., Geelhoed, E., Murphy, R., Parker, J., Sellen, A. & Shaw, K., Lifestyles of working parents: Implications and opportunities for new technologies. HP Tech report HPL-2003-88 (R.1) (2004)]

Our research, which included interviews with 12 dual-income families in Pittsburgh about their wakeup experience, found that many young children after leaving their cribs interrupted their parents’ sleep by getting out of bed at night. Reported in at the 2006 Ubicomp conference [Scott Davidoff, Min Kyung Lee, John Zimmerman, Anind Dey (2006): Principle of Smart Home Control. Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Springer: 19-34.]

We conducted a lab study with 6 parents from dual-income families to assess how well our clock integrates into their bedtime and wakeup routines. During this evaluation we got confirmation that children getting out of bed at night was a real problem, and we learned that most families wanted to test our product in their homes to see if it would help keep their children in bed. Reported in a paper to be published at DPPI 2007 (Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces)

[KursatOZ @ May 15th 2007 12:38PM]

Looking at most of the comments, I would like to remind that this project does not have a commercial focus, but rather creating knowledge for the academia and practice. The project has been run by design researchers whose aim is to enhance the practical and emotional quality of dual income families' morning rush. RAC does not emerge as a coincidence but rather as a result of intense brainstorming sessions, etnographic studies, interviews with families in Pittsburgh, interviews with childcare and sleeping habit experts from Eindhoven, Netherlands. The selection of natural signifiers (moon, sun, stars) and their behavioral patterns on the light display are based on a wide range of design explorations and J.Piaget's child's time perception theories. RAC is designed to support families' bedtime routine rather than creating its own routine. A final word, the project is still in progress, and the research group behind this project always appreciates constructive insights and criticism.

[anonymous @ Jun 14th 2007 10:42AM]

This device is horrible. It encourages bad parenting, it's based on outdated behaviourist
theories, and it can only work by taking advantage of the ignorance and fear of the children - human beings that are smaller and know less but are no less human beings than adults.

It's acceptable that parents want a break from their children, what is not acceptable is to ignore their chosen parental role and to force them to go to bed when they are not tired. Children should not have to be bored or distressed while parents have fun.

The responsibility of parents is not only to help children grow healthily and learn. It's also to respect their autonomy as human beings by helping them do what they want with their present lives, without hurting themselves or others.

Only a prejudiced view of children as a special subgroup of humankind still allows us to think of them as subjects of the adults' arbitrary authority and schemes.