There is variation in the design and purposes of the different apps/games we are creating. They fall loosely into three categories:

1. functional
2. challenge, learning, games
3. exploration, enjoyment

Functional software is simple, and intended to accomplish a specific task, such as giving a parrot a way to indicate yes or no to a human. "Simple Yes or No" is an example of this type of an app. It does not have value beyond its direct purpose, communicating the answer to a query from a human.

Most training techniques use food treats as motivation to encourage specific behaviors from parrots. This is effective and useful in a lot of situations. With regard to our apps and games specifically, users may find that it is helpful to use food rewards (treats) to encourage interaction with the software initially, but we expect that people may not need to use any reward system on an ongoing basis. We are developing apps and games that parrots will be motivated to interact with intrinsically, not in order to get a food reward. This is not in conflict with training techniques.

Too often in games, game makers punish players inadvertently by making them game too hard. Obviously, there are cases where making the game hard is in pursuit of fiero or hard fun (see the Four Fun Keys). However, what about the player who is trying hard to play but lacks the motor skills to master the game's demands? Should this player walk away from the game, frustrated and angry at not being able to complete a game that they were previously enjoying tremendously? How many players fail to complete a game they love because of a boss battle they simply cannot win, even using a cheat guide?

This is a video showing a game that Buster Keaton and Patricia developed.