MyDayLight: the development of a co-design
process involving participatory design and co-
evaluation
Semi-structured Interview Analysis
User: Adam
10-05-2018
In the database, this interview can be found as:
Audio_Interview_10-05-2018_Adam_ReflectionOnUsageOfFirstPrototype Description: This interview, that takes approximately 15 minutes, is the second interview of the afternoon of the 10th of May. In this interview, Adam and the researcher reflect on their
test session with the prototype form the first iteration and compare it to the original version of MyDayLight initially. This prototype has sound added to a notification and it has the rainbow light brightening up for a longer period of time.
Conversation Course: As for the previous interview, the conversation starts with the researcher explaining the set-up of the test session. Once again, Adam and the researcher have conducted two activities. The first one being a conversation in which Adam is immersed in such a way that is is difficult for him to de-focus his attention. The second one is boiling water in the kitchen. The objective of this set-up, as it was with the previous set-up, is to orchestrate an activity that ensures immersion from Adam’s side. This corresponds to the challenges that he experiences that are caused by autism. By choosing these set-ups, it will become clear to what extend MyDayLight can be useful in supporting him with attention and organization.
Subsequently, the researcher asks his first question: do the changes in this prototype add to the effectiveness of MyDayLight being a system that supports attention and
organization? Adam replies positively. In his experience, he gets triggered faster because of sound than because of a rainbow light. This is a personal thing, though, as he acknowledges that sound could be a problematic notification for some people on the spectrum. Therefore, Adam proposes the option to have it possible to both use sound as to not use sound. This should be chosen by the user. Subsequently, the researcher asks the user to give his opinion on the decision to have a doorbell as the sound that was used at this moment for notifying the user to start with the planned activity. Interestingly, this sound was not chosen wisely, as a doorbell can be associated with unexpected visitors, which could be experienced as incredibly unsettling by some people with autism. Adam confirms this. Adam does acknowledge the fact that such a sound does grasp someone’s attention.
The latter is a dilemma, of course. Naturally, MyDayLight was designed for embodied empowerment, not for persuasive technology. Having an intrusive sound is not at all fit for design for embodiment and could not be considered more persuasive. On the other hand, Adam explains that, one way or the other, it is essential that the user’s attention gets grasped. Otherwise, the system has no value to the user. This does not mean that Adam does not appreciate only having light as notification. He explains that people with autism often experience problems with being touched and hearing intrusive sound. Therefore, it is inarguable that there should always be the option to only have light without a sound. In
conclusion, the researcher and Adam summarize the conclusion as having solely a light as most user-friendly, but having a sound as most effective. It is required to find the perfect balance between these two extremes.
Adam does not see only negative sides of intrusive sounds as he does not believe an intrusive sound could automatically not be appreciated. In his opinion, a user with autism is willing to accept an intrusive sound when they believes that the end justifies the means. Adam proposes that the user should decide for theirself how intrusive the sound should be for a planned activity. Adam exemplifies this with a driver’s lesson and doing the dirty dishes. In his opinion, it would be accepted by the user if they would have an intrusive sound go off when they has a driver’s lesson planned as this is a rather important activity. However, when the dishes need to be done, it would be understandable if the user chose a less intrusive sound. Of course, doing the dishes is not as important as showing up at a driver’s lesson.
Building on this, the researcher jumps to design opportunities. He asks whether or not the intrusiveness of a sound should be a variable in choosing what sound to go off. Adam suggests two more variables: duration and volume. By adding these variables, the
intrusiveness of sound is not only determined by the character of the sound, but also two other variables. By doing this, the user could, for example, decide to have a subtle tune go off, but for three or for times in a row. Lastly, Adam expresses that he still wonders how a recording would be appreciated in notifying the user that they needs to do something.
Lastly, the user brings up the longer duration of the rainbow light. This is clearly appreciated by Adam. He believes the user should have the time to see the rainbow light brighten up. He also suggests that some sort of feedback to the system could be
appreciated. For example, the user could press something on the light that would make the rainbow stop brightening up. For now, Adam suggests to make the rainbow light turn on for even a longer period of time.
Lastly, Adam opens up another discussion: can the disability of the user to plan activities obstruct effective usage of the system. For example, until now, the research has assumed that the user can calculate the importance of certain activities, the duration and the impact. But if the user cannot do this independently, how is it assured that the user can even properly work with MyDayLight? Is a supervisor necessary for teaching the user how to plan? Again, this is a personal matter. The interview is then concluded with Adam stating that it has encompassed all his thoughts and proposed design opportunities.
Interesting Points: Again, before diving into the contents, it is slightly noticeable that Adam primarily reflects on the usage of the system whilst reflecting on other hypothetical users with autism, rather than on himself. However, throughout the interview, this interview character has naturally been steered towards.
As Adam is a very outspoken, opinionated and intelligent young man with autism, his feedback is very clear, constructive and detailed. This is very useful in determining next prototype requirements within a co-design process. He goes that far that he thinks of variables that should be possible in a next prototype, rather than leaving all the design thoughts at the researcher. Naturally, it is the researcher’s task to include the user in the design process and prototyping phase as well, but it becomes apparent that Adam does not need much steering or persuasion to cut into that topic.