Interactions - November/December 2012

participatory design is particularly difficult because the population is relatively small.

Children with autism may have difficulty exploring the wide walls of interactive technologies because they usually favor repetitive play patterns with a few select toys. Alannah Dsouza, Maria Barretto, and Vijaya Raman are conducting research at a boarding school in Bangalore, India for children with autism, ages 5 to 11, evaluating the development, design, and impact of their Uncommon Sense toys project [ 7]. After observing the children’s free play, arts and craft sessions, low-tech interactive activities, and experimentation with prototypes, the researchers developed a set of four tangible computing objects that must be used collaboratively (shared actions, movements, and voice) to trigger multisensory feedback (audio, visual, and tactile). The simple toys can be adapted to different settings, play partners, and activity sequences. The different play possibilities afforded by Uncommon Sense’s wide—but not too wide—walls open up various key developmental skills, such as flexibility, turn taking, joint attention, and imitation.

fied. Ample support and attention needs to be built into interactive technologies for the kids who push the boundaries of the walls, and who need additional opportunities at either the top of the ceiling or the lowest threshold of entry, depending on the environment.

ronments. Designing for children with disabilities is a bridge that runs two ways, as the potential knowledge exchange and shared experiences are mutually beneficial for all children and society at large.

Reinforced Corners In addition to the three specifications above, we propose adding a fourth component, reinforced corners. At the points where the widest walls, lowest floors, or highest ceilings meet, exceptional children may need additional and unique types of support. For example, gifted students with disabilities (“ mixed-need” or “twice-exceptional” students) are particularly at risk for growing frustrated or bored with existing interactive technologies because their needs—intellectual, social, physical, and emotional—are often not well understood or identi-

ENDNOTES:

1. Alper, M., Hourcade, J.P., and Gilutz, S. Interactive technologies for children with special needs. Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York (2012), 363-366. 2. Resnick, M. and Silverman, B. Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York, (2005), 117-122.

3. Bhargava, R. Designing a computational construction kit for the blind and visually impaired (Master’s thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2002.

4. Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., and Robison, A.J. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL, 2006.

5. Taylor, V. and Ladner, R. Broadening participation: Data trends on minorities and people with disabilities in computing. Communications of the ACM 54, 12 (2011), 34-37.

6. Peppler, K. A. and Warschauer, M. Uncovering literacies, disrupting stereotypes: Examining the (dis)abilities of a child learning to computer program and read. International Journal of Learning and Media 3, 3 (2012), 15-41.

7. Dsouza, A., Barretto, M., and Raman, V. Uncommon Sense: Interactive sensory toys that encourage social interaction among children with autism. Workshop paper presented at IDC ‘ 12, Bremen, Germany, 2012; http://www.divms.uiowa.

edu/~hourcade/idc2012-specialneeds/dsouza.pdf

Conclusion

Researchers and designers have primarily applied the “low floors, high ceilings, wide walls” approach to designing interactive technologies to mainstream computer-programming environments for kids such as Scratch and Programmable Bricks. When applied to the domain of children with disabilities, specific dimensions need to be taken into consideration: low floors with ramps (for participation), high ceilings and tall ladders (for expression), and wide walls and frames of interests (for personalization). A fourth specification—reinforced corners—should be considered for supporting exceptional children who may thrive at the corners where the widest walls, highest ceilings, and lowest floors intersect.

Children with disabilities are a richly diverse population. For example, two children of the same age, socioeconomic background, gender, and disability could need opposite design solutions. None of the authors has a disability (like the majority of people in the interaction design and technology fields), and we advocate for a more diverse community of scholars that includes increased opportunities for researchers and designers with disabilities themselves. One way to support this solidarity and community in mixed-ability spaces is to take into account the diverse lived experiences of young people with disabilities in the design of interactive technologies and computer-programming envi-

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Meryl Alper is a doctoral student at
the Annenberg School for
Communication and Journalism at
the University of Southern
California. Her research focuses on
young children’s evolving relation-
ships with analog, digital, and assistive technologies.

Juan Pablo Hourcade is an associate professor in the department of computer science at the University of Iowa. His main area of research is human-computer interaction, with a concentration on the design, implementation, Shuli Gilutz is a research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel. Her current research focuses on children’s HCI— specifically, the factors influencing comprehension and children’s interaction with tangible interfaces.