Design after design to bridge between people living with cognitive or sensory impairments, their friends and proxies

A carer or teacher often plays the role of proxy or spokesperson for a person living with an intellectual disability or form of cognitive or sensory impairment. Our research undertook co-design with people living with cognitive and sensory impairments and their proxies in order to explore new ways of facilitating communication. We developed simple functioning interactive prototypes to support people with a diverse range of competencies to communicate and explore their use. Deployment of the prototypes enabled use, appropriation and design after design by our two participant groups; adults living with cognitive or sensory impairments and children identified with language delays and autism spectrum disorder. The prototypes supported concrete expression of likes, dislikes, capabilities, emotional wants and needs and forms of expression that hitherto had not been fostered, further informing design. Carers and designers were surprised at the ways in which the technology was used and how it fostered new forms of social interaction and expression. We elaborate on how design after design can be an effective approach for engaging people living with intellectual disabilities, giving them greater capacity for expression and power in design and offering the potential to expand and deepen their social relationships.

[1]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Located Accountabilities in Technology Production , 2002, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Geraldine Fitzpatrick,et al.  Towards Rapid Technology Probes for Senior People , 2013, SouthCHI.

[3]  Ole Iversen,et al.  Building a BRIDGE between children and users: a socio-cultural approach to child–computer interaction , 2008, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[4]  Sandrine Balbo,et al.  Towards co-design with users who have autism spectrum disorders , 2009, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[5]  Michael L. Wehmeyer,et al.  The Relationship Between Self-Determination and Quality of Life for Adults with Mental Retardation , 1998 .

[6]  P MacMillan,et al.  Does he take sugar? , 1980, Nursing times.

[7]  Margot Brereton,et al.  A CHILD LED PARTICIPATORY APPROACH FOR TECHNOLOGY- BASED INTERVENTION , 2012 .

[8]  L. Holt,et al.  Special Units for Young People on the Autistic Spectrum in Mainstream Schools: Sites of Normalisation, Abnormalisation, Inclusion, and Exclusion , 2012 .

[9]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Does he take sugar?: moving beyond the rhetoric of compassion , 2013, INTR.

[10]  Margot Brereton,et al.  Growing local participation through long term design , 2012 .

[11]  Allison Druin,et al.  Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families , 2003, CHI '03.

[12]  Liam J. Bannon,et al.  Design matters in participatory design , 2012 .

[13]  S. Iwarsson,et al.  Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[14]  S. Wieder,et al.  The child with special needs : encouraging intellectual and emotional growth , 1998 .

[15]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments , 1997, CHI.

[16]  Margot Brereton,et al.  Beyond ethnography: engagement and reciprocity as foundations for design research out here , 2014, CHI.

[17]  Maximilien De Robespierre,et al.  PDF) It Takes Two To Talk A Practical Guide For Parents Of Children With Language Delays , 2016 .

[18]  Juan Pablo Hourcade,et al.  Interactive technologies for children with special needs , 2012, IDC '12.

[19]  Margot Brereton,et al.  Design from the everyday: continuously evolving, embedded exploratory prototypes , 2010, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[20]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Participation in design things , 2008, PDC.

[21]  Jo Herstad,et al.  Three tensions in participatory design for inclusion , 2013, CHI.