Socially Connecting Adults with Intellectual Disabilities Through Inclusive Co-Design of Tangible and Visual Technology
Manesha Andradi · 2022 · Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '22) · doi:10.1145/3517428.3550416
Summary
This doctoral consortium paper presents an in-progress PhD research program exploring how tangible and visual technologies can be co-designed with adults who have intellectual disabilities to foster social connections at non-residential learning hubs. The research is motivated by the high rates of loneliness among people with intellectual disabilities — over 40% report feeling lonely — and the fact that social connection heavily relies on verbal and written communication, which many people with intellectual disabilities find challenging. The author proposes a three-phase research plan: Phase 1 consists of exploratory studies using technology workshops to build relationships and understand participants' strengths, abilities, and interests; Phase 2 involves a long-term (12-18 month) co-design process to iteratively develop tangible and visual technology prototypes; and Phase 3 focuses on evaluation and consolidation of a design framework. The paper reports findings from the completed first year, during which eight technology workshops were conducted at a non-residential learning hub in Australia. These workshops used off-the-shelf devices and low-fidelity prototypes including colour-detecting speakerdrums, tangible talking boards with participant photos, Makey-Makey music interfaces with custom buttons made from fruit and dough, identity-focused games, interactive music blankets, and digital and physical art creation activities. The research adopts an ethnographic approach, collecting data through written observations and video recordings, with attention to interpreting micro-expressions from minimally verbal participants.
Key findings
The exploratory workshops yielded several important findings for designing technology with adults who have intellectual disabilities. First, building trust between researcher and participants was foundational — the author attended consistently, used humour and praise, was transparent about research objectives, and invested significant time getting to know participants as people rather than research subjects. This trust-building led to participants initiating affection, requesting the researcher's return, and actively joining workshops. Second, low-fidelity prototypes and Wizard of Oz techniques proved highly effective, allowing rapid iteration and exploration of design features while keeping participants engaged with tangible, changing experiences each week. Third, the workshops revealed that participants naturally gravitated toward group problem-solving and making activities, teaching each other new techniques and showing pride in their creations — engagement was highest when there was an element of making involved. Fourth, agency and representation emerged as an unexpected but important theme: the group included people with diverse communication styles (verbal, basic Australian Sign Language, subtle expressions, unique sounds), and ensuring everyone had a say while preventing more verbal individuals from overpowering quieter participants proved a significant design challenge. Fifth, self-expression through multiple modalities — tangible, visual, auditory — provided participants with organic ways to express themselves and build identity within the group. The author also builds on their earlier work on "reverse inclusion," designing from the lived experience of an individual with intellectual disabilities and then expanding to include broader social circles.
Relevance
This research addresses a significant gap in accessibility work: most technology for people with intellectual disabilities focuses on children or on functional tasks like daily living skills, overlooking the social and expressive needs of adults. The finding that over 40% of adults with intellectual disabilities feel lonely, combined with the decline in institutional living, highlights the urgent need for technologies that support community connection rather than just skill acquisition. For practitioners, the paper offers practical insights into co-design methods that work with minimally verbal adults — using low-fidelity prototypes, ethnographic observation of micro-expressions, extended trust-building periods, and activities that emphasize making and self-expression over instruction-following. The concept of reverse inclusion is particularly valuable: rather than adapting neurotypical designs for neurodivergent users, it starts from the needs and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities and expands outward. While still early-stage research, the three-phase framework provides a model for long-term, relationship-centered design research with communities that are often excluded from participatory processes due to communication barriers.
Tags: intellectual disability · co-design · tangible technology · social connection · participatory design · communication · reverse inclusion · self-expression