I read “Participatory Design of a Collaborative Accessible Digital Musical Interface with Children with Autism Spectrum Condition“ by Balázs Iványi, Truls Tjemsland, Lloyd May, Matt Robidoux, and Stefania Serafin and would like to state my opinions, thoughts, feedback and critique in the following paragraphs.
I really like the core idea of creating a tool specifically for children with autism. I’ve always found neurodiversity fascinating—how differently people on the spectrum perceive the world and react to interventions. The brain is such a powerful thing, and seeing projects that try to meet neurodivergent individuals on their level is super cool. Giving kids a medium to explore social skills through music feels like a thoughtful and interesting approach.
What I really appreciate is that this project doesn’t just design for children with ASC but instead designs with them. The participatory design (PD) process is such a respectful and inclusive way to work—especially with a population that’s often overlooked in design and research processes. It’s great to see the researchers really leaning into methods like fictional inquiry and narrative-based workshops to engage the children on their terms.
At the same time, one thing that left me a bit puzzled was how quickly the team settled on the idea of a “music box” app. While music can be therapeutic and collaborative, the paper doesn’t fully explain how this specific medium connects with the needs or strengths of autistic children. Why music over other sensory or communication-based tools? That connection could’ve been explored more deeply, especially since kids on the spectrum can have such different sensory profiles—some love sound, others might be overwhelmed by it.
Another interesting point for me was recognizing the iterative prototyping process—it was like a flashback to what we’ve learned in our own courses. Start with simple experiments (like trying sounds on the phone), move on to lo-fi prototypes (like a cardboard box), and finally develop a more polished product. It’s encouraging to see this familiar design thinking structure being applied in a real research context and to such a meaningful user group.
Still, I would’ve liked more details about the final version of the prototype—what exactly can it do now? How do kids use it? Will it be made publicly available or used long-term in schools? The evaluation section gave some hints, but it stayed pretty vague. I also wonder how they plan to address the issue of physical proximity being uncomfortable for some kids—especially when the app is meant to be collaborative and used by multiple users on a single iPad. Would separating controls or even offering individual interfaces be a better fit?
One suggestion might have been to involve a music therapist earlier in the design process. Some teachers mentioned this toward the end, and I think it could’ve really helped bridge the gap between musical expression and social skill development in a structured way. Also, while the aesthetic design choices were touched on (like using retro-futuristic visuals), I wonder how much user testing went into determining if those visuals were actually appealing or helpful for the kids.
Overall, I think the project has great intentions, a solid foundation in participatory research, and shows sensitivity to working with children with ASC. I just wish there had been more insight into the real-life impact of the final product—and how the kids actually felt using it in the long run. But as a student myself, I find it really encouraging to see how others apply the methods we’ve learned in such a creative and inclusive way.
