In Search of a Decision-Making Framework for Involving Users Who Have Learning Disabilities or Sensory Impairments in the Process of Designing Future Technologies

Abstract

A comprehensive literature review was undertaken in order to identify design approaches that have been employed with users who have learning disabilities or sensory impairment; the factors that influenced their choices and the extent to which the approaches and techniques adopted were successful. There was a huge variation across the corpus regarding whether a justification was offered for the choice of approach and the extent to which those justifications were supported by evidence. In addition there was a lack of comprehensive evaluation of the design approaches. Technology designers who intend working with users with learning disabilities or sensory impairments therefore currently have little to help them decide which design approach might be the most appropriate or effective.

It soon became clear – insights into technology and participation

“…In particular, this emergent approach was set against the technology companies' prior understandings of participatory research and their focus upon traditional, quantitative approaches, which tend to position participants as largely passive or absent “subjects” (Sheehy et al , 2019). It also seems likely that participants' understandings of participatory practices were influenced by their design backgrounds (for example, the focus on iterative processes) and that this reflected the wide variations across the literature (Seale et al , 2019).…”

“…Some are not developed specifically with disabled users in mind, such as user-centred design (UCD), participatory design (PD) and human-centred design (HCD) and some encourage disability sensitive practices through adopting principles of universal design, design for all, accessible design or inclusive design. Although in theory similarities and differences exist between these approaches, in practice designers confuse them, which often means they might think there are being genuinely participatory, but actually are not (Seale et al , 2019). This confusion in practice is exacerbated within the literature because designers do not fully define, articulate or justify what it was they were doing when they publish papers.…”