Co-Design of Technology with and for People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review of Methods and Inclusion Strategies
Jacqueline Johnstone, Madhuka Nadeeshani, Preity Pai, Troy McGee, Kirsten Ellis, Swamy Ananthanarayan · 2026 · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '26) · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791163
Summary
This scoping review examines how people with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) and their support networks have been involved in the co-design of technology, addressing a persistent gap: despite HCI's growing emphasis on inclusive design, people with ID remain markedly underrepresented compared to other disability groups. Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, the authors searched four databases (ACM, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar), screening 3,874 records down to 25 peer-reviewed studies spanning 2014-2024. They deliberately scoped out Autism Spectrum Disorder because ASD-focused findings do not automatically transfer to ID, and they distinguished co-design from adjacent traditions like Participatory Design and User-Centred Design, treating co-design as a distinct practice that redistributes decision-making power with co-designers rather than collecting feedback from participants. The analysis classifies studies by focus (technology, method, or experience), research aim, contribution type, co-design phase, and methods used. Twenty distinct methods are grouped into four families: verbal and discussion-based, observational and contextual inquiry, creative modes of engagement, and user experience and usability testing. The authors examine how each method was adapted for diverse cognitive, communication, and sensory needs, and pay particular attention to how language, setting, and representation shape whether people with ID are positioned as participants, collaborators, or co-researchers. The synthesis culminates in seven evidence-based principles for designing future co-design work with this population.
Key findings
Interviews (n=16), prototyping (n=14), workshops (n=11), and observation (n=10) were the most common methods; low-fidelity and incomplete prototypes emerged as particularly effective for grounding abstract ideas in tangible, manipulable form. Almost two-thirds (65%) of studies that reported a setting chose environments already familiar to co-designers. The corpus skews heavily toward mild and moderate ID: people with severe or profound ID were rarely included, largely due to methods that still lean on verbal interaction. Diagnostic labelling remains dominant - 88% of papers used clinical diagnostic labels for participants, with only one study reporting functional support needs instead. The term 'participants' was used in 68% of papers, while 'co-researcher' appeared only once, exposing a gap between rhetoric and formal recognition of contribution. Only 28% of studies drew on established accessibility standards (Easy Read, picture supports, WCAG 2.1), which the authors flag as a significant missed opportunity. Across the corpus, successful inclusion depended less on any single technique than on layered adaptations: simplified language, visual and multimodal supports, iterative 'little and often' engagement, trusted support people acting as communication partners, and mixed-method triangulation to validate insights.
Relevance
For accessibility practitioners, this review is a practical map of what actually works when co-designing with people with ID, and where the field is still falling short. The seven principles - competency-based design, little-and-often iteration, supportive environments, reframing power through language, narrative and concrete approaches, mixed-method triangulation, and leveraging accessibility standards - translate directly into planning decisions for research, product, and service design. The critique of diagnostic labelling and the under-use of Easy Read and WCAG is especially actionable: teams can adopt strength-based, functional descriptions and embed existing standards into their recruitment, consent, and session materials immediately. Limitations worth noting: the review excludes grey literature and non-academic design practice (where much inclusive work happens), deliberately scopes out ASD, and cannot say much about severe or profound ID because the underlying corpus rarely includes those participants.
Tags: co-design · intellectual disability · participatory design · inclusive design · scoping review · HCI · accessibility research
Standards referenced: WCAG 2.1