CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Innovative Human-Technology InteractionAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityTechnology Use by Older Adults

Thinking OutsideTheBox - Designing Smart Things with Autistic Children

Open access
Frauenberger, Christopher, Spiel, Katta, Makhaeva, Julia·2019·International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1080/10447318.2018.1550177PMC PMC6474726
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article offers a synopsis of and a critical reflection on the research project OutsideTheBox Rethinking Assistive Technology with Autistic Children. The aim of the 3-year project was to develop digital technology that would holistically respond to the complex life-worlds of autistic children, affording positive experiences that they could share with others. Through a series of long-term participatory design processes, smart objects were developed individually with nine children employing a wide range of different methods (e.g., Co-operative Inquiry, Future Workshops, Fictional Inquiry, Magic Workshops, Drama and Making & Digital Fabrication). In this article are presented the cases of all children worked with and tie them together by a critical reflection across them. The discussion offers insights along three main themes: we a) substantiate the argument for a theoretical shift in conceptualizing roles for technology in the lives of disabled people, b) discuss our methodological contributions in participatory design processes and c) propose alternative, participatory approaches to evaluate outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10447318.2018.1550177

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inclusive and participatory teaching formats foster technical competence, empathy, and agency among students.

    “Research shows that inclusive and participatory teaching formats foster technical competence, empathy, and agency among students [2, 12], and early curriculum-facing explorations of neuroinclusive pedagogy in CS [13].”

    From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

    The OutsideTheBox project section describes participatory design with autistic children, and the Conclusion says the authors believe the children were empowered to think differently about technology. The paper does not establish that teaching formats foster technical competence or empathy among students; its empowerment claim is also tentative and limited to the participating children. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Participation on equal footing and recognition of lived experience as expertise foster empowerment and agency.

    “Our findings support the view that participation on equal footing and recognition of lived experience as expertise foster empowerment and agency [2, 9, 12].”

    From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

    In Critical reflection > Outcomes and evaluation (page unavailable), the paper treats autistic children’s own perspectives as valuable and says they offer unique insights. Critical reflection > Process reports that children’s ideas significantly shaped the designs, while the Conclusion says the authors hope participating children were empowered. It does not establish participation on equal footing or show that recognizing lived experience as expertise fostered empowerment and agency. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Baron-Cohen S., Scott F. J., Allison C., Williams J., Bolton P., Matthews F. E., & Brayne C. (2009). Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 194, 500– 509. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.059345 19478287 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Benton L., & Johnson H. (2015). Widening participation in technology design: A review of the involvement of children with special educational needs and disabilities. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 3–4, 23– 40. issn: 2212-8689. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.07.001 · DOI
  3. Brandt E., & Grunnet C. (2000). Evoking the future: Drama and props in user centered design. In Cherkasky, T., J. Greenbaum, P. Mambrey and J.K. Pors (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th biennial Participatory Design Conference, PDC 2000, New York, NY, USA, 28 November - 1 December 2000: Designing Digital Environments, Palo Alto, CA: CPSR.
  4. Bratteteig T., & Wagner I. (2014). Disentangling participation power and decision-making in participatory design. In Iversen, O.S., H. Winschiers-Theophilus, V. D'Andrea, C. Bossen, M. Teli and K. Bødker (Eds.). Proceedings of the 13th biennial Participatory Design Conference, PDC 2014, Windhoek, Namibia, October 6-10, 2014: Reflecting Connectedness, Volume II, New York, NY: ACM.
  5. Craig J., & Baron-Cohen S. (1999). Creativity and imagination in autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29(4), 319– 326. doi: 10.1023/A:1022163403479 10478731 · DOI
  6. Csikszentmihalyi M. (2009). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (pp. 303). New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics isbn: 978-0-06-133920-2.
  7. Dindler C., & Iversen O. S. (2007). Fictional inquiry design collaboration in a shared narrative space. CoDesign, 3(4), 213– 234. doi: 10.1080/15710880701500187 · DOI
  8. Druin A. (1999). Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’99 (pp. 592– 599). New York, NY: ACM isbn: 0-201-48559-1. doi: 10.1145/302979.303166 · DOI
  9. Frauenberger C. (2015). Disability and technology a critical realist perspective. Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ASSETS ’15 (p. 8). Lisbon, Portugal: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2700648.2809851 · DOI
  10. Frauenberger C., Makhaeva J., & Spiel K. (2016). Designing smart objects with autistic children: Four design Exposès. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’16 Honorable Mention (best 4% of submissions) (pp. 130– 139). New York, NY: ACM isbn: 978-1-4503-3362-7. doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858050 · DOI
  11. Frauenberger C., Makhaeva J., & Spiel K. (2017). Blending methods: Developing participatory design sessions for autistic children. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. IDC ’17 (pp. 39– 49). New York, NY: ACM isbn: 978-1-4503-4921-5. doi: 10.1145/3078072.3079727 · DOI
  12. Frauenberger C., & Posch I. (2014). Exploring future technologies through digital fabrication with autistic children. Participatory Design in Digital Fabrication Workshop at FabLearn’14 Stanford, CA: FabLearn’14 Retrieved from http://outsidethebox.at/files/fabwithasd.pdf
  13. Frauenberger C., Rauhala M., & Fitzpatrick G. (2017). In-action ethics. Interacting with Computers, 29(2), 220– 236. issn: 0953-5438. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iww024 · DOI
  14. Gaver B., & Bowers J. (2012). Annotated portfolios. Interactions, 19(4), 40– 49. doi: 10.1145/2212877.2212889 · DOI
  15. H¨o¨ok K., Dalsgaard P., Reeves S., Bardzell J., L¨owgren J., Stolterman E., & Rogers Y. (2015). Knowledge production in interaction design (pp. 2429– 2432). ACM Press isbn: 978-1-4503-3146-3. doi: 10.1145/2702613.2702653 · DOI
  16. Holtzblatt K., & Jones S. (1993). Contextual inquiry: A participatory technique for system design In Namioka, Aki and Schuler, Doug (Eds.). Participatory Design: Principles and Practice. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Earlbaumpp. 177–210.
  17. J S., & Maier F. (2009). Analysing discourses and dispositives: A Foucauldian approach to theory and methodology In Wodak R. & Meyer M. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 109– 136). London, UK: Sage.
  18. Jarrold C. (2003). A review of research into pretend play in autism. Autism, 7(4), 379– 390. issn: 1362-3613, 1461-7005. doi: 10.1177/1362361303007004004 14678677 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Kientz J. A., Goodwin M. S., Hayes G. R., & Abowd G. D. (2013). Interactive technologies for autism. Synthesis Lectures on Assistive, Rehabilitative, and Health-Preserving Technologies, 2(2), 1– 177. doi: 10.2200/S00533ED1V01Y201309ARH004 · DOI
  20. Kim Y. S., Leventhal B. L., Koh Y.-J., Fombonne E., Laska E., Lim E.-C., … Grinker R. R. (2011). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in a total population sample. American Journal Psychiatry. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10101532 21558103 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kuniavsky M. (2007). Magic as a metaphor for ubiquitous computing. Ambidextrous Magazine, Spring (pp. 36– 37).
  22. Latour B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Clarendon lectures in management studies (pp. 301). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press isbn: 0-19-925604-7.
  23. Makhaeva J., Frauenberger C., & Spiel K. (2016). Creating creative spaces for co-designing with autistic children – The concept of a “Handlungsspielraum”. Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference. PDC’16(pp. 51– 60). Aarhus, Denmark: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2940299.2940306. · DOI
  24. Mankoff J., Hayes G. R., & Kasnitz D. (2010). Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ASSETS ’10(pp. 3– 10). Orlando, FL: ACM isbn: 978-1-60558-881-0. doi: 10.1145/1878803.1878807 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Sato S., & Salvador T. (1999). Methods & Tools: Playacting and focus troupes:: Theater techniques for creating quick, intense, immersive, and engaging focus group sessions. Interactions, 6(5), 35– 41. issn: 1072-5520. doi: 10.1145/312683.312715 · DOI
  26. Silver M., & Oakes P. (2001). Evaluation of a new computer intervention to teach people with autism or asperger syndrome to recognize and predict emotions in others. Autism, 5(3), 299– 316. issn: 1362-3613, 1461-7005. doi: 10.1177/1362361301005003007 11708589 · DOI
  27. Spiel K., Frauenberger C., & Fitzpatrick G. (2017). Experiences of autistic children with technologies. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. Designing with and for Children with Special Needs, 11, 50– 61. issn: 2212-8689. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.10.007 · DOI
  28. Spiel K., Frauenberger C., Hornecker E., & Fitzpatrick G. (2017). When empathy is not enough: Assessing the experiences of autistic children with technologies. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’17 Honorable Mention (best 4% of submissions) (pp. 2853– 2864). New York, NY: ACM isbn: 978-1-4503-4655-9. doi: 10.1145/3025453.3025785 · DOI
  29. Spiel K., Frauenberger C., Makhaeva J., & Kayali F. (2016). Talking about myself playful inquiry into an absent life world. Workshop on Games as HCI Method at CHI’16 San Jose, USA: ACM.
  30. Spiel K., Malinverni L., Good J., & Frauenberger C. (2017). Participatory evaluation with autistic children. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’17 Honorable Mention (best 4% of submissions) (pp. 5755– 5766). New York, NY: ACM isbn: 978-1-4503-4655-9. doi: 10.1145/3025453.3025851 · DOI
  31. Vavoula G., & Sharples M. (2007). Future technology workshop: A collaborative method for the design of new learning technologies and activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 393– 419. issn: 1556-1607. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9026-0 · DOI
  32. Xu G., Strathearn L., Liu B., & Bao W. (2018). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among us children and adolescents, 2014-2016. JAMA, 319(1), 81– 82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.17812 29297068 PMC5833544 · DOI
  33. Zimmerman J., Stolterman E., & Forlizzi J. (2010). An analysis and critique of Research through Design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. DIS ’10: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 310– 319). Aarhus, Denmark: ACM isbn: 978-1-4503-0103-9. doi: 10.1145/1858171.1858228 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frauenberger, C., Spiel, K., & Makhaeva, J.
Affiliations
TU Wien (AT)
Corresponding author
Frauenberger, Christopher
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-11-29
Volume
35
Issue
8
Pages
666-678
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
DOI
10.1080/10447318.2018.1550177
PMC
PMC6474726
OpenAlex
W2903347228
Cited by
72
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
Austrian Science Fund (FWF P26281-N23)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, children with autism, assistive technology, smart objects, participatory design, co-design, outcome measurement, digital fabrication, future workshop

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review