Computers, creativity and learning

CfP DESIGNING FOR AND WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN MULTIPLE SETTINGS

Call for Participation: DESIGNING FOR AND WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN MULTIPLE SETTINGS IDC 2013 Workshop New York, USA https://designspecialneeds.wordpress.com/

IMPORTANT DATES: – Submission by: 18/03/13 – Notification of Acceptance: 19/04/13 – Workshop: full day

 

Interaction design (ID) methodologies are being increasingly used in the design and development of novel technologies for children with special needs in a multitude of educational, clinical and social settings. Combining the ubiquity of digital technologies with the depth of empirical knowledge we have gained in recent years, surrounding the etiology of many psychological, physical, and emotional difficulties affecting children, places ID research in a unique position of impact. However, designing within this area remains complicated for a myriad of reasons. Any child requiring assistance due to a physical, psychological or learning difficulty can be defined as having special needs. Yet, this umbrella term, under which a huge assortment of diagnoses and difficulties can be grouped, is not used consistently across the literature. Consistently defining special needs, whilst remaining mindful of the intricacies and complexities of the term itself, will establish a community wide language that bridges the gap between HCI, clinical and education literature. Additionally, the methodological and ethical issues that arise when working with these groups, and within different research contexts, are multifaceted when we consider the vast and complex needs of the children that we come into contact with. Previous examples of HCI involving children with special needs has included, children with; autism, cerebral palsy, severe motor impairment, vision and auditory impairments, and physical disabilities. The aim of this workshop is to synthesize this work, through the interaction of a diverse community. We aim to explore experiences around designing for- and with- children with special needs in different settings to identify terminological and methodological implications that occur in this domain. Additionally we hope to identify potential avenues for future research in this area. This full day workshop will bring together an interdisciplinary group of researchers, designers and practitioners who are currently working to design technologies for and with children with special needs within multiple settings in the field of interaction design, education or health care, or are interested in the topic. We invite the submission of 2-4 page position papers in ACM Extended Abstract format (http://chi2013.acm.org/authors/format/) offering perspectives on topics including (but not limited to): • Reflections on the ethical and practical challenges of working in special needs contexts • design concepts or developments of technologies designed for or with children with special needs • user or case studies of how interaction designs have been appropriated to support design methodologies in the context of working with children with special needs • Guidelines, implications or lessons learned for engaging users in the design process or evaluation of special needs supporting designs Submissions should be sent to r.mcnaney@ncl.ac.uk by the 18th March 2013. Workshop submissions will be reviewed by the program committee and workshop organizers. Accepted position papers will be made available on the workshop website. We will ask participants to read specific position papers prior to the workshop. Please also note that all workshop participants must register for both the workshop and for at least one day of the main IDC 2013 conference. The reason for this policy is that workshops are supposed to be a part of the IDC conference, not separate events that happen to be in the same location at the same time. The intention is that people will be attending the conference as well. Please email Róisín McNaney (r.mcnaney@ncl.ac.uk), Madeline Balaam (madelin.balaam@ncl.ac.uk) or any of the workshop organisers if you have any questions about the workshop.

Why HCI should listen to Mothers

We've released the list of accepted papers for the CHI 2013 workshop on Motherhood and HCI. This is tremendously exciting, because a brainwave which Madeline and I had while eating pies during the summer has really come off. (Thanks, Piemaker on North Bridge).

We were pleased to get so many submissions and such a diverse range of topics. Some are early stage design ideas, some are about existing prototypes, some are analyses of off the self motherhood apps, others are personal reflections on technology and motherhood. The authors are mostly, but not all, women which I think will make a nice change at a computing conference. Here is the text of my position paper, which argues why we should consider mothers (rather than the more general term "parents") as a specific target demographic. Not that I have anything against fathers. I have one myself.

Abstract

This position paper argues that more research effort in HCI should be directed at understanding the needs of mothers as a distinct technology user group.

Introduction

There are many reasons why mothers are deserving of HCI research attention. As mothers comprise a huge demographic group, we should not ignore the needs of these users, particularly as mothers are politically influential [9] and are powerful consumers [10]. Expectant and new mothers endure taxing and rapid emotional and biological changes during which technology could offer some support through monitoring and recording of the changes. New mothers experience a spectrum of emotional challenges, not all positive: exhaustion, loneliness, fear, guilt and resentment [5]. They are particularly vulnerable to depression [1].Technology could have a role to play in helping women find emotional support from health care professionals and other mothers. There is a huge learning curve associated with the practical tasks of child care [1]; technology could be used to assist healthcare professionals in parental education.

What about the dads?

Fathers play an equally important role in raising children, but it is a distinct (although overlapping) role. Being a mother is not the same as being a father.

Mothers, particularly in the very earliest stages of their children’s lives, have unique experiences and biological needs. Women’s bodies carry a burden which men’s do not.  They must contend with the pain and inconvenience of menstrual cycles; weather the discomfort, hormonal changes, fatigue and the invasion of privacy required by medical care during pregnancy; carry the literal weight of the growing baby; endure the agony of child birth; and (possibly) nurture a baby through their breast milk. These biological challenges are accompanied by a range of emotional and social pressures, which may overlap with those of fathers, but are quite distinct.

Some might wish fathers’ behaviours and expectations around child care to be the same as mothers’. However, this is not the case in many parts of the world. An Australian study found that children add (an alarming) thirty five hours of domestic chores a week to a couple’s household [3]. In childless couples in the UK, 62% of domestic chores are done by women; for couples with a child, this rises to 75% [4]. Furthermore, there is evidence that mothers and fathers have different expectations about fathers’ roles in parenting. A study in the US found that mothers have higher expectations of support from the father in housework and emotional support. Men have lower expectations of themselves in terms of emotional support and baby care. [6].

Where do we go next?

Based on personal experience, I believe that the most fruitful area of research will initially be in supporting women as they undergo physical changes associated with bearing children, and as they learn how to care for an infant. There is a dearth of formal HCI research, but a plethora of homespun smart phone apps in this area. Applications in these areas can be simple non-threatening tools for providing information and enabling users to record changes in their own or their baby’s bodies. Given the sensitivity of the domain, and some controversy in the role of technological interventions in delivery itself [1], I believe that we should take great care in developing new technology which would alter women’s experience of motherhood. We may need to develop new design and consultation methodologies for working with new mothers to overcome practical difficulties associated with consulting chronically sleep deprived users who are holding miniature users! But our direction is clear: we should listen to mothers, and respect their needs in the design of technology products for them.

References

[1] Petch, J., & Halford, W. K. (2008). Psycho-education to enhance couples’ transition to parenthood. Clinical psychology review, 28(7), 1125–37.

 [3] Craig, L., & Bittman, M. (2005). The effects of children on adults' time-use: Analysis of the incremental time costs of children in Australia. Social Policy Research Centre. Retrieved on 8/1/13 from http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/File/DP143.pdf

[4] Schober, P. (2013). Gender equality and outsourcing of domestic work, childbearing, and relationship stability among British couples. Journal of Family Issues.34(1). 25-52.

[5] Barclay, L., Everitt, L., Rogan, F., Schmied, V., Wyllie, A. Becoming a Mother — an Analysis of Women’s Experience of Early Motherhood. (1997) Journal of Advanced Nursing 25, pp. 719–728.

[6] Fox, G. L., Bruce, C., & CombsâOrme, T. (2000). Parenting Expectations and Concerns of Fathers and Mothers of Newborn Infants. Family relations. 49(2). 123-131

[9] Osnes, B. (2004). Mothers Acting Up: A Political Force to be Reckoned With! Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, 6(1).

[10] Silverstein, M.J. and Sayre, K. (2009). The Female Economy. Harvard Business Review, September.

[1]    Davis-Floyd, R. The Technocratic Body: American As Cultural. (1994) Social Science and Medicine 38, 8, pp. 1125 – 1140.

When is user centred design selfish?

In 2005 Don Norman wrote: “Human-Centered Design has become such a dominant theme in design that it is now accepted by interface and application designers automatically, without thought, let alone criticism. That’s a dangerous state — when things are treated as accepted wisdom.” . I find this statement refreshing, because I am beginning to find the juxtaposition of user centred design (UCD) with recent trends in HCI towards sensitive application areas a little worrying. The benefits of UCD are well accepted: better appreciation of user’s needs resulting in better designed products which are more suitable usable and satisfying, empowerment of users, in depth understanding of the needs of specific demographic groups built up within a research community. I have seen criticism of UCD on cost or resource grounds (often in the form of a straw man), but never on ethical grounds.

Who benefits from user centred design according to standard wisdom? Designers and their employers benefit, because they end up with better products. End users (that amorphous generalised group) benefit, because their software-using lives are more satisfactory. Researchers benefit, because they get papers published about their thoughtful and inclusive design methodologies. What I want to know is whether particular users who contribute to the design process actually get anything out of it? And do they stand to lose anything?

Previous authors have argued that Scandinavian employees benefit as participant designers because they get to participate in work place decisions . Druin has claimed that children reap the benefits of being in intergenerational design teams . It’s quite easy to argue that contributing to redesigning the fiendish technology inflicted on us by our employers is satisfying, or that participating in a design activity has educational value. But let’s face it, for ordinary users, taking part in a design task is time consuming and may intrude into an already crowded schedule. Some people might find it tedious (“not another packet of post-it notes and a blank wall!”). Others may find it threatening (“I don’t want to show how little I know about technology”). In the end, it might be disappointing for those whose ideas don’t make it into the final product (“I wasted an hour of my life to have these jokers ignore my genius ideas?”), or those who are underwhelmed by the rough edges of a research prototype (“you realise this smart phone is made of paper?”).  These are mere irritations, presented cynically and not entirely seriously. However, in cases of user centred design work in sensitive areas involving vulnerable users there are some genuine ethical concerns which I think we need to talk about.

CHI has been expanding into new domains recently, with the laudable goal of using technology and design to improve people’s lives. But as we move from research about productivity systems in the work place to technology to improve the quality of users’ lives - in domains such as farming assistance in the developing world, health care, environmental disaster management, reminiscence, homelessness and end of life care- we must tread lightly.

We know from well established ethical principles that researchers should adhere to the general ethical principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence: by taking part in our design processes, users should benefit and should not be at risk of harm. We should not stray from our area of professional competency. We should not disrupt the lives of our participants unless we believe that the benefits outweigh the costs of the intrusion. But within the current set of user centred design practices, some of these ethical principles are compromised when working with vulnerable users.

Imagine a fictitious research project which aims to develop technology to help the bereaved share memories of those they have loved and lost. This is an academic project suffering from underfunding (as many do) and the designers can only afford to make a rough prototype which never makes it to market. The designers, realising that this is a very emotionally sensitive area, seek to consult users in order that the technology is appropriate, comforting and respectful of grief.  They interview a new widow on several occasions, and ask her to try a pilot application. They find this to be useful exercise and believe that their design is much improved because of it. They publish a paper about it, and other researchers are interested in the findings and it generates much discussion at a conference. Unfortunately, the user herself does not benefit from her contribution to the design because she finds that the software doesn’t run on her computer due to glitches she doesn’t understand. The researchers tell her that there may be a proper product developed in a few years, but she is finding it hard enough to get through each day just now, and doesn’t want to think that she will still feel this way in the future.  During the consultations, she finds it painful to talk about her loss, and tiring to keep concentrating on the design activity as she is distracted by worries about her financial circumstances. Originally she felt she ought to contribute to the project because she wanted to help other people in the future, but she is now increasingly upset by having relative strangers in her own home.

In this story we have well intentioned, respectful practitioners following best practices for design who nonetheless departed from ethical principles. They have unintentionally caused emotional distress without providing the benefits of a working system. They have intruded into the life of the user at a time when she was particularly vulnerable. They have been operating out-with their area of professional competency, as they were trained as designers and programmers rather than therapists. It is possible to imagine scenarios in other sensitive domains where similar ethical transgressions occur. What if physical rehabilitation technology trials aggravate injuries? What if involvement in a design project disrupts the participants’ social standing in a community in an unforeseen way? What if the time spent on design activities diverts vulnerable participants’ attention from addressing the key issues which are of important to them? I believe it is time to reconsider the best practices for design in sensitive areas from the point of view of the participant. Why should they help a design project? We cannot expect altruism on their part, nor a desire to further research knowledge. We must be careful that our own motivations for user centred design activities are not selfish.

Design adventures in a children's hospital part 2

A few months back, I posted a bit about a project which Madeline Balaam and I are doing in a children's hospital. We've been asked to write a report recommending how technology enhanced play can be incorporated into the design of a new building for the hospital which will open in 2017. We've now finished the first phase of our consultation with patients, parents and the play specialists on staff. After observing children in the play rooms, and interviewing various people who kindly spared some time, and reading the literature we came up with a set of design principals and then design stories based on them.

Here is a draft list of the design principals. Play technology in the hospital should:

• Offer age appropriate opportunities for creative, imaginative, expressive and therapeutic play 
• Support comfort and rest: technology can be used to make surroundings more pleasant when patients are feeling unwell
• Enable play with children and their parents
• Support family and friendship ties- patients need to communicate with their friends, classmates, teachers and family members outside the hospital.
• Help children to make new friends within the hospital – patients should have opportunities to meet other children of their own age within the hospital 
• Foster a community – build a sense of belonging and contributing to something positive 
• Keep patients in touch with the outside world: patients can engage with nature, the passing of time and seasons and world events. If they cannot go into the outside world, it can be brought to them 
• Enable patients to express their emotions, even if they are negative. 
• Offer opportunities for children to care and nurture. 
• Meet health and safety requirements in terms of medical restrictions, infection control and child protection

Our design stories are here. They are based on the principals above as you will see. I'd love it if you could add some comments and suggestions. Children, parents and staff at the hospital will be doing the same (am going to start this process on Radio Lollipop tonight), but we are keen to consult more widely. Particularly with knowledgeable (and may I say charming) technologists such as yourself.