Design Opportunities for AAC and Children with Severe Speech and Physical Impairments
Honorable MentionAuthors
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) technologies can support children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI) to express themselves. Yet, these seemingly ‘enabling’ technologies are often abandoned by this target group, suggesting a need to understand how they are used in communication. Little research has considered the interaction between people, interaction design and the material dimension of AAC. To address this, we report on a qualitative video study that examines the situated communication of five children using AAC in a special school. Our findings offer a new perspective on reconceptualising AAC design and use revealing four areas for future design: (1) incorporating an embodied view of communication, (2) designing to emphasise children’s competence and agency, (3) regulating the presence, prominence and value of AAC, and (4) supporting a wider range of communicative functions that help address children’s needs.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 100%
``Just Not Together'': The Experience of Videoconferencing for People with Aphasia during the Covid-19 Pandemic
CHI '22· Augmentative & Alternative Communication (AAC) +1
- 80%
Co-Designing QuickPic: Automated Topic-Specific Communication Boards from Photographs for AAC-Based Language Instruction
CHI '24· Augmentative & Alternative Communication (AAC) +1
- 71%
Captivate! Contextual Language Guidance for Parent–Child Interaction
CHI '22· Cognitive Impairment & Neurodiversity (Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia) +2
- 67%
TalkingBoogie: Collaborative Mobile AAC System for Non-verbal Children with Developmental Disabilities and Their Caregivers
CHI '20· Augmentative & Alternative Communication (AAC) +1
- 60%
"Piece it together": Insights from one year of engagement with electronics and programming for people with intellectual disabilities
CHI '23· Special Education Technology
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)