A participatory product design process with children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

This study aims to explore the ways of involving children with autism in participatory product design processes. Due to the impaired skills of children with autism, a key aspect of the process is to gain an understanding of the nature of the disorder and how these children interact with their social and material surroundings as well as their daily life problems. Considering this, a case study was conducted with children with autism, their parents and teachers, and also industrial design students in a public special education centre in İzmir, Turkey. The design task was to reconsider the conventional trampoline design with respect to the needs of the sample group and the special education centre as well as the benefits it provides. The task was based on the patterns of behaviours, actions and movement. Observations, interviews and questionnaires were carried out, as well as collaborative meetings and discussion meetings. Through the case study, the findings provided insights into conducting a participatory process with children with autism, the roles of the participants, and the interaction and communication among them. Furthermore, participants’ attitude towards participatory design, the potential benefits of the design process, and innovations to benefit children with autism were explained.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncdn20
Download by: [Yasar Universitesi] Date: 23 February 2017, At: 01:47
CoDesign
International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts
ISSN: 1571-0882 (Print) 1745-3755 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncdn20
A participatory product design process with
children with autism spectrum disorder
Sevi Merter & Deniz Hasırcı
To cite this article: Sevi Merter & Deniz Hasırcı (2016): A participatory product design process
with children with autism spectrum disorder, CoDesign
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2016.1263669
Published online: 07 Dec 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 64
View related articles
View Crossmark data

CODESIGN, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2016.1263669
A participatory product design process with children with
autism spectrum disorder
Sevi Mertera and Deniz Hasırcıb
aIndustrial Design Department, Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey; bDepartment of Interior Architecture and
Environmental Design, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey
ABSTRACT
This study aims to explore the ways of involving children with autism
in participatory product design processes. Due to the impaired skills
of children with autism, a key aspect of the process is to gain an
understanding of the nature of the disorder and how these children
interact with their social and material surroundings as well as their
daily life problems. Considering this, a case study was conducted with
children with autism, their parents and teachers, and also industrial
design students in a public special education centre in İzmir, Turkey.
The design task was to reconsider the conventional trampoline
design with respect to the needs of the sample group and the
special education centre as well as the benets it provides. The task
was based on the patterns of behaviours, actions and movement.
Observations, interviews and questionnaires were carried out, as well
as collaborative meetings and discussion meetings. Through the case
study, the ndings provided insights into conducting a participatory
process with children with autism, the roles of the participants, and
the interaction and communication among them. Furthermore,
participants’ attitude towards participatory design, the potential
benets of the design process, and innovations to benet children
with autism were explained.
1. Introduction
Participatory design promotes the involvement of children with autism, who are oen
marginalised and excluded from the design process. It gives them a central role in the
process and provides a voice to their caregivers, also aected by the disorder. It also sup-
ports the design of more appropriate products for their use, increasing their well-being.
Understanding their lives, with unique experiences, their social, cognitive, physical, psy-
chological and sensory impairments, patterns of behaviours and interests as well as the
underlying causes of these behaviours are of great importance in designing for and with
children with autism. However, there are a limited number of research-based participatory
projects, which mostly focus on HCI (Pares et al. 2005; Van Rijn and Stappers 2008; Hirano
et al. 2010), interface (Keay-Bright 2007; Benton et al. 2012; Malinverni et al. 2014), and
KEYWORDS
Participatory design; product
design; children with autism;
Turkey
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 17 February 2016
Accepted18 November 2016
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Sevi Mer ter sevi.merter@yasar.edu.tr

2 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
technology design (Frauenberger, Good, and Keay-Bright 2011; Millen, Cobb, and Patel
2011), and fewer applications in the eld of product design. erefore, this study aims to
investigate ways to work with children with autism and understand how participatory
design processes evolve under such special conditions. It also aims to aid designers to shape
their research directions by highlighting opportunities and constraints of working with this
special user group in future product design projects.
e prevalence of autism is aected by a variety of factors, such as geographies with dif-
ferent demographics, quality and accessibility of health care services, improper assessment,
and diagnostic criteria changing over time (Volkmar et al. 2004; Wing, Gould, and Gillberg
2011; CDC 2012, 2014; APA 2013; NIMH 2014; Croen et al. 2006 cited in Anagnostou et al.
2015). Although no exact gures are available, the prevalence number has been accepted as
approximately 1% worldwide, based on a wide range of reports on dierent populations in
dierent countries (Won, Mah, and Kim 2013). Kılıç Ekici (2013) states that, according to
informal records, the estimated number in Turkey is over 600,000, with 200,000 between
the ages of 0–14. More specically, the number of school-age children with autism is esti-
mated to be 6000 in İzmir, but only 342 children have access to free full-day education at
public special education centres in the city, due to the limited number of autism-specic
institutions, qualied special educators, and funding from the government (Koç 2014; MEB
2016). For those attending private institutions, the government funds only a small part of
the intervention fee, only 12h of the overall intervention per month (Otizm Platformu
2008; Kılıç Ekici 2013).
2. Participatory design with children with autism
Participatory design is a reciprocal process-oriented research practice, focusing on the
empowerment of participants and ‘the exploration and identication of presumably posi-
tive future possibilities’ (Sanders and Stappers 2008, 8). It takes a human-centred attitude
allowing people, especially those who are excluded in society, to have a sense of ownership
over the design by contributing to the decision-making process, either directly and/or
through representatives, leading to its development and/or improvement through demo-
cratic, emancipatory and transparent practices (Muller et al. 1991; Sano 2000; Simonsen
and Hertzum 2010; Greenbaum and Loi 2012). Participation decentralises the authority
by breaking down the hierarchical power structures of non-participatory processes, which
attribute creativity only to the designer. Participatory design acknowledges that everyone
has creative problem-solving skills and enables participants to express their creative abili-
ties. us, participants bring a design into existence and give meaning to it through active
participation (Sanders 2001; Sui 2003; Lahti and Seitama-Hakkarainen 2005). e prole
of participants and the type, level and frequency of their participation may vary according
to the design context (Sano 2000). Participation in identifying problems, gathering par-
ticipant-led design input, and generating solutions to these problems enable development
of designs suited to participants’ needs, considering their work roles, relations to the design
task, and physical/cognitive conditions (Maguire 2001; Olsson 2004; Muller and Druin
2012). Within this perspective, children with autism are a special user group that should
participate in design processes.
Participatory design is an appropriate methodological approach to adopt when working
with children with autism, since it is dicult to communicate with these individuals. ese

CODESIGN 3
children and their caregivers have started to participate in various design projects, mostly
in the eld of technology (Pares et al. 2005; Van Rijn and Stappers 2008; Hirano et al. 2010;
Frauenberger, Good, and Keay-Bright 2011; Millen, Cobb, and Patel 2011; Benton et al.
2012; Malinverni et al. 2014). However, their involvement comes with challenges caused
by the disorder, which aects the design process (Woodcock and Woolner 2007; Benton
et al. 2011; Hendriks, Slegers, and Duysburgh 2015). For instance, such children lack com-
munication, interaction and conceptual thinking skills required for collaboration and idea
generation. Moreover, unfamiliar situations can cause anxiety and frustration. erefore,
direct knowledge elicitation methods, brainstorming, interviewing, sketching and low-
tech prototyping etc., which require verbal, visual and/or hands-on activities, may be less
appropriate and eective (Keay-Bright 2007; Hendriks, Slegers, and Duysburgh 2015). is
challenge requires tailoring the methods and tools to the varying conditions and abilities of
children (Van Rijn and Stappers 2008; Millen, Cobb, and Patel 2011; Frauenberger, Good,
and Alcorn 2012; Hendriks, Slegers, and Duysburgh 2015). Keay-Bright (2007) states that
neither quantitative nor qualitative data can be gathered systematically when working with
children with autism. erefore, it is important to gather those data through a exible
method, focusing on physical activities, verbal expressions or gestures (Frauenberger, Good,
and Alcorn 2012).
3. The case study
To understand how children with autism interact with their material surroundings and
explore ways to involve them in the design process through participatory methods, a case
study was conducted at Güzelbahçe Special Education, Application, and Vocational Training
Centre, in İzmir, Turkey, with eight children, a total of seven parents, seven teachers and
eight industrial design students; approved by the institutional ethical board. A partici-
pant-led approach shaped the design task which was reconsidering the conventional tram-
poline design, regarding the needs of the school and the children. It was approved to be
a suitable task within the scope of this study, since trampolines are oen used in such
schools to encourage physical activity due to their various benets. ese include providing
a whole body workout, improving gross motor skills, vestibular and proprioceptive sys-
tems, increasing spatial awareness, and relaxing and regulating the body systems through
repetitive up-and-down movements, as well as increasing cognitive skills with its therapeu-
tic eects on perception and communication (Rebounderapy.org 2014). Regarding the
guidelines and principles suggested in IDEAS (Benton et al. 2011, 2012), LINKX (Van Rijn
and Stappers 2008), and ReactiveColours (Keay-Bright 2007), special attention was paid to
providing the children with structured activities and sensory experiences, identifying and
using their special interests and personal strengths, establishing trustworthy relationships
with the participants and ensuring familiarity.
3.1. Site
One of three public special education centres established in İzmir, in 2016 (MEB 2016), this
centre provides free full-day education to children with autism, and is divided into three
four-year levels with a curriculum, including gym classes, which is approved by the Ministry
of Education of Turkey. It also provides preschool education and vocational training. It has

4 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
a capacity of up to 84 students between the ages of 3–23, and had provided education for 26
students with 10 teachers by December 2014. ere are 20 classrooms dedicated to student
groups with a maximum of 4, in each, and shared spaces, including an atelier, a conference
room, a library, a dining hall and a gym.
3.2. Setting of the study
Among the visited schools in İzmir, this establishment agreed to collaborate in this study
with the full participation of the registered students, parents, and teachers. In the scope
of the design brief, the observations were done mainly in the school gym to explore the
children’s sports activities and trampoline use.
3.3. Sample group
ere were 23 registered children at the school, with ages ranging from 4.5 to 17. Following
the preliminary meetings with the principal, families were invited to a meeting at the school
by the administration for a detailed explanation of the study.
Four second-year and four third-year students from the Department of Industrial Design
at Yaşar University, İzmir, participated in the study. ey were chosen regarding their skills
in design and interpersonal communication, and willingness to work with children with
autism.
3.4. Participants of the study
irty-one participants in total were involved in dierent stages of the process. Eight par-
ticipant children with autism, referred to as ‘children’, varied in their interaction, com-
munication and learning skills, behavioural patterns, interests, sensory sensitivities and
interaction with the trampoline, as well as in the level of intensity of their autistic and
accompanying conditions (Table 1). e information about each child was obtained from
the questionnaires and interviews with their parents, teachers and through observations
before and during the workshop.
None of the eight industrial design students, referred as ‘designers’, had had any previous
experience of an individual with autism. Seven parents of the eight children volunteered
to participate in the study and gave written consent for the participation of their children.
Four parents were present at the school whole day to supervise their children, whereas the
Table 1.General profile of the participant children.
Child Gender Age Diagnosis Comorbid conditions Time spent at the school
1 F 4.5 Atypical autism – Full day (only afternoon twice a week)
2 M 5 Autism Mental disability Full day
Physical disability
3 M 5 Autism – Only afternoon
4 F 7 Autism – Full day
5 M 9 Autism Epilepsy Only afternoon (previously full day)
Hyperactivity
Hyposensitivity
6 M 11 Autism – Full day
7 M 14 Autism – Full day (only morning twice a week)
8 M 14 Autism – Full day (only morning twice a week)

CODESIGN 5
others le their children at the school. All eight teachers were contacted, but only ve class
and two gym teachers fully participated.
3.5. Method
e case study consists of four phases: the problem identication stage, start-up meeting,
workshop sessions and evaluation sessions.
Figure 1 represents the process of the study.
3.5.1. The problem identication stage
In this stage, questionnaires, interviews and observations were applied, and the design
brief was prepared.
Questionnaires for parents and teachers were designed to elicit direct responses about the
participant children, and focused on common daily problems and the children’s interaction
with their material surroundings in daily routines. e questionnaires were distributed to
the parents aer a 15-min informative meeting, followed by the teachers of the participant
children. It consisted of 14 items related to the children’s diagnosis and comorbid condi-
tions, most signicant daily life problems, objects that they mostly use and/or are obsessed
with, problems encountered while using them, approaches to personalisation, interests and
talents, and consent for the children’s participation. e same open-ended questions were
given to the parents and teachers.
During subsequent visits to the school, observations were made to support the data col-
lected through questionnaires and interviews, with a focus on gathering more information
about autism, the most eective ways of interaction, the site, and all children at the school
Figure 1.The phases of the case study.

6 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
individually. All class and sports activities, lunch hours, special day events, were videotaped.
ese exploratory observations helped the preparation of the design brief and instruments
for the research.
During this stage, it was recognised that the majority of the children at the school
showed great interest in the trampoline and additional activities were done as they used it.
Nonetheless, a few number of children were afraid of the jumping activity. With respect to
the ways the children interacted with the equipment and its physical features, there was also
a strong need for increased safety. Regarding the ndings supported by the literature, the
design brief was prepared. e design task was to reconsider the conventional trampoline
design by developing a diversity of design solutions for an improved bouncing activity and
to explore alternative uses in order to improve children’s sensory systems, physical abilities,
cognitive skills, concentration and safety.
3.5.2. Start-up meeting
Aer the problem identication stage, a start-up meeting was scheduled with the designers.
Each participant child was introduced through a selection of video recordings, photographs,
and a summary of the results of the questionnaires and initial observations.
In line with the widely accepted intervention methods, such as ABA (Ryan 2011) and
TEACCH (Mesibov, Shea, and Schopler 2004), the workshop sessions were structured to
be run one-on-one by randomly assigning one child to each designer.
3.5.3. Workshop sessions
e workshop was scheduled for four days and each designer worked with the assigned
children for three days, coinciding with the children’s weekly gym class schedule. Before the
workshop sessions, the designers visited the school once in order to get familiar to the site
and the participants. ey conducted interviews with the parents and teachers, observed
the children’s trampoline use, and held meetings among themselves to share information.
e designers were allowed to be the ‘shadow’ of any participant throughout the process.
ey spent time with the children in class and in breaks outside the gym as well.
During the sessions, the designers conducted interviews with the parents and teachers
to understand the underlying reasons and motivations of the participant children’s behav-
iours and preferences. Each time they communicate with the parents and teachers, they
emphasised the importance of their participation and that it would contribute to the studies
that may inuence their children’s future as well as the fact that this study was not a cure
for their children’s condition. During the interviews, the designers kept written notes and
shared them in collaborative meetings.
Observing the children during their activities enabled an understanding of their behav-
iours to use as design input. Since most children were non-verbal, observation, rather than
questioning, provided greater opportunity to gather data.
While observing the gym, the designers lled the observation form divided into three
sections: sports activities, the trampoline activity and designers’ insights. e sections con-
tained 82 items in total: 30 items in ‘sport activities’, 44 items in ‘the trampoline activity’,
and 8 items in ‘personal insights’. ey were related to the class structure, engagement and
interest, interaction and communication, support and intervention, concentration, physical
development, patterns of behaviours and activities, safety issues and personal comments
and insights of the designer.

CODESIGN 7
Observations were recorded through reective notes, photographs and videos. Video-
recording provided data on the children’s physical activities and behaviours, while pho-
tographs supported these by providing close-up views of the activities and environment.
Since children with autism may be disturbed by any changes in the environment, it was
decided not to place a camera in the setting, but rather, using individual mobile devices
when appropriate.
All designers had some experience with each participant child (Figure 2).
e designers came together periodically to share ndings collaboratively (Figures 3
and 4).
3.5.4. Evaluation sessions
Two sessions were set for the participatory evaluation of the design process and its outcomes.
e designers worked individually for three weeks on their design suggestions; then, held
a discussion meeting, and decided which ideas to develop. is process was sound-recorded.
e designers decided to call the process, ‘Design with Me’ (‘Benimle Tasarla’).
All participant and non-participant children, parents and teachers were invited to
the presentation organised at the school. It was limited to 45min, during which each
designer presented their designs and asked for feedback for 5min. e whole session was
video-recorded.
e designers lled the product and self-assessment forms. at consisted of ve-point
Likert scale items about the focus of the design problem, the visibility and reection of the
participants’ involvement, as well as the clarity, originality, elaboration, appropriateness, util-
ity, adaptability, aesthetic quality and creativity of each idea presented. e self-assessment
form, on the other hand, consisted of ve-point Likert scale items about the level of partic-
ipants’ involvement, the level of communication between the designers and participants,
and in relation to the observations, the interaction, and communication of the designers
regarding the level of their contribution to the design process. is form also contained
open-ended questions on designers’ insights about the workshop.
Figure 2.Participant sheets.

8 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
3.6. Findings and discussion
3.6.1. In relation to the children with autism
When they rst met, the children became uncomfortable by the presence of the researcher
and designers. However, this discomfort decreased signicantly aer each visit, due to the
support of the parents and teachers, who facilitated interaction and managed children’s
behaviours. e designers paid special attention to maintain their distance for some time,
to avoid disturbance, before getting closer to the children for interaction. e assistance of
the parents and teachers was considerably helpful in this process. Aer becoming accus-
tomed to the designers’ presence, the children became more open to interaction, and their
concentration increased.
Figure 3.Warm-up questions.
Figure 4.Post-it clusters for problem identification and brainstorming ideas.

CODESIGN 9
e level of interaction with the children varied depending on each child’s condition as
expected. However, some of them presented more accomplishments in their activities and
established more intimate relationships with the designers, despite the negative expectations
and concerns of the parents and teachers for the particular children. During the sessions,
Child 3, 6, 7 and 8 were exceptionally comfortable, whereas Child 5 became aggressive and
rejected even the intervention of his parents. Nevertheless, he did not resist spending time
in the gym in the presence of Designer 5 and gym teachers. Child 7, who had mild autism
and good verbal communication skills, constantly tried to build dialogues with everyone,
specically Designer 7 during the sessions. Child 8 did not participate in reciprocal con-
versations, although he had the verbal ability to do so. However, he was open to physical
interaction in the sessions, such as holding hands, specically Designer 8, which made
him calm. Child 6 did not physically interact to the same extent as the others, but enjoyed
being with Designer 6 and expected physical contact from her as a reward for completing
tasks. e information obtained from the parents and teachers needed verication through
observation and direct contact with the children in some cases to understand the children’s
actions, patterns of behaviours, and preferences. erefore, higher levels of interaction with
the children during the sessions provided more input with more detailed information for
the design process.
3.6.2. In relation to the parents and teachers
Establishing trustworthy relationships with the parents and teachers was essential in the
study due to their sensitivity to their children’s conditions. It motivated the parents and
teachers to participate more in the process, be more open to the designers’ immersion, which
enabled the process to run smoothly, and share more detailed information. eir increased
motivation and willingness helped the designers to communicate with them more comfort-
ably and ask for assistance in case of need. Each participant parent and teacher engaged in
the process on dierent levels. However, Teacher 3, Parent 4 and 6 were the most active and
supportive participants, in terms of contributing with their ideas and knowledge, among
others during the sessions.
Aer the presentation, both the participant and non-participant adults stated their satis-
faction with the study and their willingness to participate in similar future studies. Teachers
3 and 7 considered the practicality of the application of the ideas at the school, and suggested
ways to combine ideas.
3.6.3. In relation to the designers
Regarding the self-assessment of the designers, the level of involvement in the design pro-
cess was the highest for children with autism, followed by gym teachers, parents and class
teachers, respectively. In regard to the overall contributions to the design solutions, observ
-
ing sports activities was evaluated as the most eective, followed by communicating with
parents, children and teachers, respectively. Observing children’s interaction with peers
and parents were rated least eective, as parents were rarely present during sports and class
activities. Moreover, the level of interaction and non-verbal communication between the
designers and children was average, whereas verbal communication was below average.
e designers described their experience as being emotional, unique and educational, and
stated that their awareness increased through involving actively in a process with this special
user group. However, they would like more time to make observations outside of school.

10 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
e process of establishing trustworthy relationships with the participants took time,
and diculties were overcome, especially through informal conversations, which helped
to build a positive and sincere dialogue. Regarding the application of the questionnaire,
asking questions in person was more eective both in terms of sincerity and being able to
seek further explanations, when needed. e designers beneted from the support of the
parents and teachers when interacting and communicating with the children, especially
when the children were anxious or distracted.
e participatory methods enabled the designers to identify certain problems, such as
the need to integrate additional activities to the trampoline and the lack of communication
between the teaching sta and families. Managing their own process and engaging in col-
laborative sessions, which were exible in duration, enabled them to work more eectively
within the structured framework of the study.
3.6.4. In relation to the trampoline design ideas
e main aim of the design brief was to increase the safety of jumping activities using
the potential benets of the trampoline. e designers’ observations and interviews also
supported the need for increased safety, although no children had been injured during the
trampoline activity (Figure 5).
Of all the children, only four interacted with their teachers only and not with peers.
Some children also performed dierent activities other than jumping, such as lying, rolling,
scratching the bed or nets to make sounds, and bouncing on knees, on the trampoline.
e gym teachers also integrated additional activities, e.g. ball-throwing, for improving
ne motor muscles. An unexpected behaviour, limited to Child 3 and 4, was to kick the
trampoline bed from underneath (Figure 6).
At the end of the study, eight trampoline concepts, embodying the participants’ needs
were presented by the designers (Figure 7). Each designer focused on the assigned child’s
characteristics, patterns of behaviours and interests, as a design input. By providing addi-
tional activities and features, they aimed to encourage the children to engage in interactive
activities with other people rather than engaging more in solitary activities (Lewis 2003;
Jordan 2003 cited in Yang et al. 2003; Sigman and Ruskin 1999 cited in Jahr et al. 2007).
Tramballoon (Trambalon) by Designer 1, was designed for children with autism who
like to spend time on the trampoline but reject to jump on it. With its mechanical bub-
ble-shaped base, the aim is to enable these children to experience and become accustomed
to the up-and-down movement for physical and sensory development and body balance.
Labyrinth (Labirent) by Designer 2 was designed to enable multiple children to jump
on the trampoline with no risk of injury and provide activities for physical therapy. e
so green bars help children stand alone and follow a path, helping to improve ne motor
skills. It has two separate entrances in order to prevent collisions. e nets are easy to li
for direct intervention in case of emergency.
‘e Trampoline’ (Trambolin) by Designer 3 was designed to prevent risky jumps on
the edge of the trampoline. e base is designed to prevent passage under the trampoline.
Colourful graphics are used in the centre to catch attention to ensure that the jumper stays
close to the centre.
Jump Safe (Güvenle Zıpla) by Designer 4 was designed for hyperactive children with
autism who use the trampoline with force. Support legs are increased in number for
increased stability. e interlock system of the safety net is redesigned to prevent children

CODESIGN 11
from climbing/falling over the top of the xed bars. In order to prevent children interfering
with the net, the bars are curved towards the outside.
Gr0und (Zem1n) by Designer 5 was designed as a ground-level trampoline for children
with autism who would otherwise avoid the trampoline because of their acrophobia.
Illuminating Squares (Işıldayan Kareler) by Designer 6 was designed for children with
autism who have acrophobia and are fascinated by light. Each square has a bed with dierent
level of tension to help children get used to the trampoline activity, and the white frames
light up with each jump. It is aimed to encourage and enable interaction with others through
additional activities, such as ball-throwing over these nets.
Figure 5.The current state of the trampoline at the school.

12 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
Numbermatic (Rakammatik) by Designer 7 was designed to enhance communication
and interaction between children with autism and their teachers. It supports the improve-
ment of cognitive and learning skills. e child throws the number in answer to basic math
operations out of the net through the holes, helping to improve ne motor skills by engaging
him/her in sticking and grasping the numbers.
Interpoline (Interbolin) by Designer 8 was designed as an interactive play area for chil-
dren with autism aiming to encourage them to jump on a xed spot, strengthen their ability
to grasp and increase the eectiveness of activities. It provides an enjoyable sports activity
with audio-visual stimuli. Various visuals are projected onto the bed from a projector on
top to encourage the learning of colours, numbers and animals.
Regarding the designers’ product assessments, the problem denitions were the most
precise in Illuminating Lights and Numbermatic. Illuminating Lights and Labyrinth were
the designs that were most focused on a specic problem area, while the clearest presenta-
tions of a design idea were seen in Labyrinth, Gr0und, Numbermatic and ‘e Trampoline’.
Moreover, the participants’ involvement was most clearly reected in Numbermatic, since
the participant child involved was more open to communication. ‘e Trampoline’ and
Numbermatic scored highest for originality. According to the designers, the most detailed
solutions were seen in Labyrinth and Interpoline. e solutions that ‘e Trampoline’ and
Interpoline suggested were the most appropriate solutions to the design problem identi-
ed by their designers. Interpoline was found to be the most logical, useful and benecial
solution, whereas Illuminating Lights was regarded as the most adaptable for children
with autism. Moreover, the elements of Labyrinth and ‘e Trampoline’ were rated the
Figure 6.Activities on the trampoline.

CODESIGN 13
highest for their aesthetic quality. Finally, ‘e Trampoline’, Numbermatic and Labyrinth
were found to be the most innovative, which went furthest in expanding the conventional
trampoline concept.
Figure 7.Trampoline design ideas by the designers.

14 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
Since the trampoline is used in multisensory environments that provide sensory expe-
riences and challenges, the design concepts were guided by Woodcock and Woolner’s
(2007) themes for design consideration of a multisensory room for children with autism:
accommodating sensory variability, avoiding inappropriate or easily damaged materials
and objects, addressing the whole spectrum and providing repetition. Each design sug-
gestion, embedded with the participants’ input, aimed to provide the children with at least
one sensory experience, as well as stimulating their vestibular and proprioceptive systems.
e aim was to increase their engagement in the activity by decreasing distraction and
providing additional learning activities. In terms of the use of materials and objects, safety
issues and material features were also considered in each, and special attention was paid to
hyperactivity, physical disabilities and behavioural patterns. Moreover, the heterogeneity
of the children in terms of age, severity and characteristics provided the opportunity to
investigate the subject and the related tasks from various aspects, leading to diverse design
ideas which are appropriate for most of the children on the spectrum, with or without adult
guidance. Last, the trampoline in itself contains a repetitive movement providing relaxation
and physical improvement, as well as allowing repeatable complementary activities.
It is notably important that the design task was a result of a participant-led research in
the initial stages of the study. e same approach was maintained throughout the process
that resulted in eight design suggestions, which are distinctive and valuable in the sense that
the design input came directly from children with autism, their parents and teachers. ese
suggestions were developed with and for them. However, they do not only address children
with autism, but are universal, addressing all children, either typically developing or with
autism. As well as solving current safety problems, they are responsive to the developmental
and behavioural needs of children with autism and that of typically developing children.
4. Conclusion
Participatory design, as a democratic and empowering approach, provides the opportunity
to learn more about special user groups and design for them. e involvement of individuals
with autism in design does not only increase their well-being and quality of life, but also
draws attention to their presence in the society, their potentials and capabilities. In this
study, the ways of involving children with autism in a product design process were explored.
Full participation of children with autism in the design process through direct knowledge
elicitation and generative methods is dicult, due to their autistic conditions, whereas observing
children’s behaviours, actions and expressions is more eective (Keay-Bright 2007; Frauenberger,
Good, and Alcorn 2012). Comparing the case in this study with HCI projects reviewed in
the literature, it is evident that product design, although being similar in the main approach,
requires physical contact with three-dimensional products, especially with the example of the
trampoline and focus on physical movement in this study. For ideation and 3D model/prototype
development, more generative techniques might have been used with a dierent sample group
as well. erefore, the methods used, adapted from HCI, relied heavily on the observations
and interviews with the parents and teachers. ere is great benet in involving the children’s
parents, teachers and other close persons in the study to be able to compare the information
collected, and thus have a more comprehensive understanding of the child as well as her/ his
needs. roughout this process, the children were involved as informants, whereas parents and
teachers as caregivers, facilitators, informants and evaluators, and the designers as researchers,

CODESIGN 15
observers, learners, idea developers and evaluators. e whole process was shaped through
their involvement and by their needs. Even though the form of the children’s participation was
non-verbal in the study, they provided valuable design input through their interaction with the
trampoline and the designers. e study was empowering in the sense that it was an opportunity
for the participants to have a direct inuence on the design of products they need and use. It also
extended their perspectives towards similar future studies. erefore, increasing the number of
such studies and applications is crucial.
Children with autism have various daily problems that are not only caused by their
impairments and incapabilities, but also related with the inappropriate design of their mate-
rial surroundings. erefore, empowering these children may have great implications on
improving these surroundings. In that sense, product design produced through participatory
methods has many opportunities to oer these children. Moreover, the study provided the
designers with the opportunity to gain specic experience on autism, which increased their
awareness of the potential for design in such cases, and acquire new design skills. A mutual
learning and empowerment occur in such studies that may create new opportunities for
children with autism in the eld of product design in the future.
Conducting such studies with a participatory approach may bring about some diculties
in nding participants, budget and time. However, this approach in studies allow designers
to achieve more appropriate and creative product and environmental design solutions.
During the participatory design process, even if the method of collecting data is structured,
the researcher/designer has to be receptive to other information that might be given by the
participant children with autism. Similarly, the researcher/designer needs to be exible to
adapt to the child’s responses during the process. erefore, although the data collection
method is structured, there needs to be room for a dened amount of exibility so that
the necessary information can be eectively collected. For instance, children with autism
may show unexpected behaviours, that embody a lot of information, which may inuence
the research and design process. ey should not be disregarded, but rather recorded to be
used for structuring the process and as design input. In more established institutions and
with larger number of participants, although the design process is followed on an individual
level, there is a lot to learn as a designer as well.
is study contributes to the existing literature in participatory design with special user
groups, and more specically autism. ere have not been many studies adopting the par-
ticipatory approach with individuals with autism, perhaps due to its diculty or lack of
belief that the results will be rewarding. However, the value brought by realising a study
as such, indeed has brought knowledge into the design process that would not be reached
otherwise by the designers, resulting in much more creative products, that answer specic
needs. Even in the case of trampoline, a product with a relatively simple use (jumping up
and down), working with children with autism brought creative results. us, there is vast
potential for other products that children or individuals with autism can use. ere is value
in involving the potential user, in achieving more original products, and (contrary to general
belief) in saving considerable time in stages that time would actually be lost.
4.1. Further studies
Greater number of participants with diverse conditions and severity levels could be involved,
as well as experts from dierent disciplines. e length of the workshop sessions could be

16 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
extended, including a wider range of participant groups, settings and products, enabling
comparisons and developing specialised techniques for children with autism.
Considering the design task of this study, the form of the children’s participation was
adequate. However, a dierent design task may require dierent forms of participation;
therefore, this study should be extended with further applications focusing on dierent
design tasks.
is study also has the potential to be developed further as a studio model in product
design education. Even in a simple product like the trampoline, it was possible to obtain a
variety of interpretations, by understanding the basic needs of the children, and realise the
potential of this product as a more advanced physical-educational tool. Considering the
valuable insights gained, it is hoped that this study will initiate new discussions and inspire
researchers to investigate new inclusionary ways to work with persons with autism in the
eld of product design, with the aim of increasing the quality of their lives.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Anagnostou, E., N. Jones, M. Huerta, A. K. Halladay, P. Wang, L. Scahill, J. P. Horrigan, et al. 2015.
“Measuring Social Communication Behaviors as a Treatment Endpoint in Individuals with Autism
Spectrum Disorder.” Autism 19 (5): 622–636.
APA (American Psychiatric Association). 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Benton, L., H. Johnson, E. Ashwin, M. Brosnan, and B. Grawemeyer. 2012. “Developing IDEAS:
Supporting Children with Autism within a Participatory Design Team.” In CHI’12 Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2599–2608. Austin, TX: ACM Press.
Benton, L., H. Johnson, M. Brosnan, E. Ashwin, and B. Grawemeyer. 2011. “IDEAS: An Interface
Design Experience for the Autistic Spectrum.” In CHI EA 2011 – 29th Annual CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, Conference Proceedings and Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1759–1764. Vancouver: ACM Press.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2012. “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder–
Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 Sites, United States, 2008.”
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Surveillance Summaries 61(3):1–19. Atlanta,
GA: Center of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2014. “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder
Among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11
Sites, United States, 2010.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Surveillance Summaries
63(2):1–21. Atlanta, GA: Center of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Frauenberger, C., J. Good, and A. Alcorn. 2012. “Challenges, Opportunities and Future Perspectives
in Including Children with Disabilities in the Design of Interactive Technology.” In IDC’12
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 367–370.
New York: ACM Press.
Frauenberger, C., J. Good, and W. Keay-Bright. 2011. “Designing Technology for Children with Special
Needs: Bridging Perspectives rough Participatory Design.” CoDesign 7 (1): 1–28.
Greenbaum, J., and D. Loi. 2012. “Participation, the Camel and the Elephant of Design: An
Introduction.” CoDesign 8 (2–3): 81–85.

CODESIGN 17
Hendriks, N., K. Slegers, and P. Duysburgh. 2015. “Codesign with People Living with Cognitive or
Sensory Impairments: A Case for Method Stories and Uniqueness.” CoDesign 11 (1): 70–82.
Hirano, S. H., M. T. Yeganyan, G. Marcu, D. H. Nguyen, L. A. Boyd, and G. R. Hayes. 2010.
“vSked: Evaluation of a System to Support Classroom Activities for Children with Autism.” In CHI
2010 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1633–1642.
NewYork: ACM.
Jahr, E., S. Eikeseth, S. Eldevik, and H. Aase. 2007. “Frequency and Latency of Social Interaction in
an Inclusive Kindergarten Setting: A Comparison Between Typical Children and Children with
Autism.” Autism 11 (4): 349–363.
Keay-Bright, W. E. 2007. “e Reactive Colours Project: Demonstrating Participatory and Collaborative
Design Methods for the Creation of Soware for Autistic Children.” Design Principles and Practices:
An International Journal 1 (2): 7–16.
Kılıç Ekici, Ö. 2013. “Autism Awareness through Scientic, Social and Legal Aspects.” Bilim ve Teknik
(Apr.): 30–35.
Koç, K. 2014. Personal Interview. Headmaster of Güzelbahçe Special Education, Application, and
Vocational Training Center, in İzmir, Turkey.
Lahti, H., and P. Seitama-Hakkarainen. 2005. “Towards Participatory Design in Cra and Design
Education.” CoDesign 1 (2): 103–117.
Lewis, V. 2003. “Play and Language in Children with Autism.” Autism 7 (4): 391–399.
Maguire, M. 2001. “Methods to Support Human-centered Design.” International Journal of Human
Computer Studies 55 (4): 587–634.
Malinverni, L., J. M. Guiard, V. Padillo, M. A. Mairena, A. Hervas, and N. Pares. 2014. “Participatory
Design Strategies to Enhance the Creative Contribution of Children with Special Needs.” In IDC’14
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 85–94. New York: ACM
Press.
MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı). 2016. Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü: Okul/
kurum listesi. Accessed 28 July. http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/butce/SORGU001Liste.asp?start=801
Mesibov, G. B., V. Shea, and E. Schopler. 2004. e Teacch Approach to Autism Spectrum Disorders.
New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Millen, L., S. Cobb, and H. Patel. 2011. “Participatory Design Approach with Children with Autism.”
International Journal on Disability and Human Development 10 (4): 289–294.
Muller, M. J., J. L. Blomberg, K. A. Carter, E. A. Dykstra, K. H. Madsen, and J. Greenbaum. 1991.
“Participatory Design in Britain and North America: Responses to the ‘Scandinavian Challenge’.” In
CHI’91 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 389–392.
New York: ACM.
Muller, M. J., and A. Druin. 2012. “Participatory Design: e ird Space in Human–Computer
Interaction.” In Human Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies,
and Emerging Applications. 3rd ed., edited by Julie A. Jacko, 1125–1154. New York: CRC Press.
NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health). 2014. Autism spectrum disorder. Accessed 20 March.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml
Olsson, E. 2004. “What Active Users and Designers Contribute in the Design Process.” Interacting
with Computers 16 (2): 377–401.
Otizm Platformu. 2008. “Otizm Platformu 1. Bildirgesi (2008).” Accessed 12 December 2014. http://
www.otizmplatformu.org/index.php/2013/04/otizm-platformu-1-bildirgesi2008/
Pares, N., A. Carreras, J. Durany, J. Ferrer, P. Freixa, D. Gomez, O. Kruglanski, et al. 2005. “Promotion
of Creative Activity in Children with Severe Autism through Visuals in an Interactive Multisensory
Environment.” In IDC’05 Proceeding of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children,
110–116. New York: ACM Press.
Rebounderapy.org. 2014. “A Report on Rebound erapy’s Usefulness with Children with
Disabilities.” Accessed 10 December. http://www.reboundtherapy.org/papers/rebound_therapy/
RT_usefulness_with_disabled_children_Tom_Sanderson.pdf
Ryan, Carolyn S. 2011. “Applied Behavior Analysis: Teaching Procedures and Sta Training for
Children with Autism.” In Autism Spectrum Disorders - From Genes to Environment, edited by
Tim Williams, 191–212. Rijeka: InTech.

18 S. MERTER AND D. HASIRCI
Sanders, E. B.-N. 2001. “A New Design Space.” In Proceedings of ICSID 2001 Seoul: Exploring Emerging
Design Paradigm, 317–324. Oullim. Seoul: ICSID.
Sanders, E. B.-N., and P. J. Stappers. 2008. “Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” CoDesign
4 (1): 5–18.
Sano, H. 2000. Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: Wiley.
Simonsen, J., and M. Hertzum. 2010. “Iterative Participatory Design.” In Design Research: Synergies
from Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Jesper Simonsen, Jorgen Ole Baerenholdt, Monika
Buscher, and John Damm Scheuer, 16–32. New York: Routledge.
Sui, K. W. M. 2003. “Users’ Creative Responses and Designers’ Roles.” Design Issues 19 (2): 64–73.
Van Rijn, H., and P. J. Stappers. 2008. “e Puzzling Life of Autistic Toddlers: Design Guidelines
from the LINKX Project.” Advances in Human–Computer Interaction, Special Issue Child and Play
2008 (2): 1–8.
Volkmar, F. R ., C. Lord, A. Bailey, R. T. Schultz, and A. Klin. 2004. “Autism and Per vasive Developmental
Disorders.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45 (1): 135–170.
Yang, T. R., P. J. Wolerg, S. C. Wu, and P. Y. Hwu. 2003. “Supporting Children on the Autism
Spectrum in Peer Play at Home and School: Piloting the Integrated Play Groups Model in Taiwan.”
Autism 7 (4): 437–453.
Wing, L., J. Gould, and C. Gillberg. 2011. “Autism Spectrum Disorders in the DSM-V: Better or Worse
than the DSM-IV?” Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2): 768–773.
Won, H., W. Mah, and E. Kim. 2013. “Autism Spectrum Disorder Causes, Mechanisms, and Treatments:
Focus on Neuronal Synapses.” Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 6: 1–26.
Woodcock, A., and A. Woolner. 2007. “Facilitating Communication, Teaching and Learning in
Children with an ASD: Project Spectrum.” In Proceedings of the IEEE 6th International Conference
on Development and Learning, 59–63. London: IEEE.