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.
November + December 2012
DOI: 10.1145/2377783.2377798
© 2012 ACM 1072-5520/12/11 $15.00