Voices That Matter: An Exploratory Study on Technology Preferences and Challenges Among People with Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

With the increasing interest of several accessibility researchers in the development of technological tools to better support people with intellectual disabilities in their day-to-day lives, it is becoming more and more important to understand the point of view of those directly involved. Although the number of studies conducted with the participation of users with intellectual disabilities has increased in recent years, there are still many questions we need to ask, starting from the preferences and challenges experienced by this group of individuals. For this reason, the present exploratory study aims to bring to light, through semi-structured interviews, the preferences and difficulties that two target groups-clients and staff members from a support centre in Italy - currently have regarding the use and utility of technology within their daily life. In this work, we describe the methodologies and insights emerging from the thematic analysis of the collected data from the interviews, enabling us to better understand and inform the design of more accessible technology for all.

Full text

Voices That Maer:
An Exploratory Study on Technology Preferences and Challenges
Among People with Intellectual Disabilities
Shana Dedò
Università della Svizzera italiana
Lugano, Switzerland
dedos@usi.ch
Andrea Esposito
Università della Svizzera italiana
Lugano, Switzerland
andrea.esposito@usi.ch
Leandro S. Guedes
Università della Svizzera italiana
Lugano, Switzerland
leandro.soares.guedes@usi.ch
Monica Landoni
Università della Svizzera italiana
Lugano, Switzerland
monica.landoni@usi.ch
ABSTRACT
With the increasing interest of several accessibility researchers in
the development of technological tools to better support people
with intellectual disabilities in their day-to-day lives, it is becoming
more and more important to understand the point of view of those
directly involved. Although the number of studies conducted with
the participation of users with intellectual disabilities has increased
in recent years, there are still many questions we need to ask,
starting from the preferences and challenges experienced by this
group of individuals. For this reason, the present exploratory study
aims to bring to light, through semi-structured interviews, the
preferences and diculties that two target groups - clients and sta
members from a support centre in Italy - currently have regarding
the use and utility of technology within their daily life. In this
work, we describe the methodologies and insights emerging from
the thematic analysis of the collected data from the interviews,
enabling us to better understand and inform the design of more
accessible technology for all.
CCS CONCEPTS
•Human-centered computing
→
Accessibility theory, concepts
and paradigms;Accessibility design and evaluation methods;•
Social and professional topics →People with disabilities.
KEYWORDS
Meeting Participants, Improvisation, COVID-19, People with Intel-
lectual Disabilities
ACM Reference Format:
Shana Dedò, Andrea Esposito, Leandro S. Guedes, and Monica Landoni.
2024. Voices That Matter: An Exploratory Study on Technology Preferences
and Challenges Among People with Intellectual Disabilities. In 11th Interna-
tional Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
©2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0729-2/24/11.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3696593.3696612
Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (DSAI 2024), November 13–15, 2024,
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3696593.3696612
1 INTRODUCTION
We live in a rapidly developing world, especially from a technologi-
cal perspective. With "approximately 1.3 billion people – 16% of the
global population – living with signicant disabilities today" [
18
],
technology has the potential to provide substantial assistance in
making daily life more accessible for people with disabilities. Over
the years, numerous products have been developed for this purpose
[
36
], and various communities of people with dierent disabilities
have signicantly beneted from these technologies, such as hear-
ing aids and electric wheelchairs. Further, as an understudied group
[
30
], people with intellectual disabilities require genuinely useful
tools in their lives, so it is crucial to understand the actual needs of
the end users.
In recent years, there has been an increase in studies involving
direct interaction with individuals with intellectual disabilities par-
ticularly for activities such as co-design and workshops. However,
studies focusing on direct interviews to understand their opin-
ions and usage of technology have not kept pace with the latest
technological developments [
45
]. Consequently, there is a gap in
understanding the current opinions and everyday use of technol-
ogy by individuals with intellectual disabilities, in a context where
technology is present but does not include the latest advancements
available on the market, which is a widespread reality.
This study aims to investigate how individuals with intellectual
disabilities use technology in their daily lives in Italy, emphasizing
their preferences and the challenges they encounter. Additionally,
it seeks to understand educators’ perspectives on their use of tech-
nology. Notably, responses to this question can vary signicantly
based on cultural and geographical contexts [
24
]. Previous studies
have thematically analysed the opinions of support workers for
other objectives [
4
,
42
], but they did not simultaneously include the
perspectives of the clients they work with, thereby oering only a
single viewpoint. This study, however, addresses this by incorporat-
ing both perspectives. This research forms part of a larger project
aimed at gathering data through an exploratory study and was
made possible through the collaboration of a support centre, that
provides day care for individuals with intellectual disabilities, with

DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Dedò et al.
which a senior researcher had collaborated also in the past. The
centre, situated in Italy, caters to a specic group of users with com-
plex needs, accommodating approximately 70 clients and around
15 educators, alongside other support workers. Here, we conducted
21 semi-structured interviews with two groups of participants. The
rst group comprised 12 individuals with intellectual disabilities, re-
ferred to as clients, and the second comprised 9 educators, referred
to as sta members.
Through a thematic analysis of the responses obtained, we iden-
tied the importance of three macro-domains: personal autonomy,
education, and entertainment. These results provide valuable in-
sights into how to improve and develop more inclusive technolo-
gies for individuals with intellectual disabilities, ensuring that their
needs are central to the technological development process.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2reviews the related
literature; Section 3details the methodology employed; Section
4reports the ndings derived from the interviews; Section 5dis-
cusses the themes that emerged from the thematic analysis of the
interviews; Section 6outlines the study’s limitations and Section 7
provides the conclusion.
2 RELATED WORK
2.1 Prevalence and Impact of Intellectual
Disabilities
Individuals with intellectual disabilities constitute a signicant
part of the world’s population [
31
,
32
,
58
] encompassing a diverse
range of abilities, skills and interests [
14
]. According to the World
Health Organization (WHO) "disability is part of being human and
is integral to the human experience. It results from the interaction
between health conditions and a range of environmental and personal
factors". Intellectual disability specically aects social, conceptual
and practical adaptive abilities [
51
], often necessitating tailored
support and interventions.
2.2 Barriers to Technology Access and Use
In exploring how individuals with disabilities integrate technology
into their daily lives, several barriers become evident, primarily
due to the widespread lack of accessibility in technological devices
and platforms [
5
]. These barriers encompass physical design lim-
itations that hinder those with motor skill impairments [
29
] and
software interfaces that are not intuitive or adaptable for users with
cognitive challenges [
7
,
19
]. However, recent years have witnessed
a promising trend towards inclusivity [
17
], as companies and or-
ganizations increasingly embrace the design of technologies that
accommodate diverse abilities [
3
,
50
]. This shift is exemplied by
the integration of features which aim to enhance accessibility and
empower individuals with intellectual disabilities to engage more
fully in digital experiences [15,21,26].
Another signicant barrier is the high cost of both hardware [
9
,
19
] and software [
24
]. Many individuals with intellectual disabilities
and their families have limited nancial resources [
23
], which often
leads them to prioritise essential needs such as healthcare and
daily living expenses over technological purchases. This nancial
constraint can prevent access to benecial tools and resources that
could enhance their quality of life [8,40].
Additionally, the general risk perception associated with technol-
ogy use can lead to preventive behaviour among caregivers [
1
,
44
]
and individuals with intellectual disabilities [
12
]. Education and
training in safe technology use can mitigate these concerns and
foster independence among people with disabilities [7].
2.3 Trends Towards Inclusivity and Support
Systems
Despite the challenges mentioned previously, the use of technology
among individuals with intellectual disabilities is on the rise [
39
].
This trend is partly driven by the increasing availability of accessible
technologies and partly by the recognition of the signicant benets
that technology can oer [
43
]. For instance, assistive technologies
such as communication devices [
41
] and educational software [
33
]
can greatly enhance independence and quality of life. Families
play a crucial role in this context, as their preferences and attitudes
towards technology can strongly inuence its adoption and use [
15
].
Positive family support and advocacy can lead to more eective and
meaningful use of technology, tailored to the individual’s specic
needs and interests.
The eective use of technology by individuals with intellectual
disabilities is signicantly inuenced by the skills, competence, and
perception of technology held by their caregivers and educators [
42
].
These factors play a pivotal role in facilitating and enhancing the
use of technological tools and applications within this population
[
4
,
23
]. Ensuring that caregivers and educators are equipped with
the necessary devices [
42
] and robust internet access is crucial for
eectively supporting and enhancing the daily lives of individuals
with intellectual disabilities through technology [44].
2.4 Engaging Individuals with Intellectual
Disabilities in Technology Research
As Rogers et al. advocated [
46
], it is only in recent years that re-
searchers have begun directly engaging with individuals with in-
tellectual disabilities to understand their preferences and needs
without intermediaries [
30
,
60
]. This shift towards direct engage-
ment has yielded valuable insights [
27
] and the development of
more user-centred teaching guidelines [
28
]. Such an approach en-
sures that the voices of individuals with intellectual disabilities are
heard and that the technologies designed for them genuinely meet
their needs and preferences.
The discovery and development of useful technologies for in-
dividuals with intellectual disabilities often rely on specially de-
signed events such as workshops [
22
,
34
,
54
], focus groups [
35
],
and co-design activities [
6
,
48
,
53
]. These collaborative eorts bring
together individuals with disabilities, caregivers, educators, and
researchers to analyse, develop and test solutions [
16
,
47
]. However,
despite the ideas generated during these events, these activities
sometimes fail to produce implementations that can be adopted
in daily life, as the research period often serves to dene method-
ologies and establish accessibility guidelines [
13
]. Ensuring the
long-term use and integration of these solutions requires ongoing
support, follow-up, and adaptation to changing needs and circum-
stances [
55
]. Thus, the question: what technologies are actually
used daily by individuals with intellectual disabilities?

Voices That Maer DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
This research highlights the importance of answering this ques-
tion, as it provides a better understanding of our users in terms
of both their perceptions and expectations, for clients as well as
educators. With rapid technological advancements, the use of new
technologies such as the latest generation smartphones, tablets,
computers, social robots, applications, and websites is becoming
increasingly prevalent in support centres. However, not enough
studies have been conducted to understand the underlying implica-
tions. Our aim is to inform future research and guide decisions re-
garding technological advancements and options by demonstrating
how correlations between accessibility interfaces, functionalities,
and usage can inuence choices made in the macro-domains of
personal autonomy, education, and entertainment.
3 METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of conducting this study, we contacted the Anas
support centre in Trieste, Italy. This centre had previously collab-
orated with some of the researchers involved and allowed us to
conduct multiple research activities at their facility over the span
of one week, one of which involved a social robot. Since some par-
ticipants in the research described in this paper interacted with the
robot, it will be mentioned in the ndings.
3.1 Procedure
3.1.1 estion Formulation. To formulate the questions, researchers
engaged in a brainstorming session, resulting in the creation of a
series of questions. These questions were subsequently rened with
the assistance of an experienced educator, who provided advice on
the appropriate level of complexity and terminology to use.
3.1.2 Interview Options. To pose questions to the clients, we de-
cided to oer two alternatives: conducting an online survey or a
semi-structured oral interview. As the interviews were conducted
in person, all clients opted for the oral version over the online
survey. Meanwhile, all the interviewed sta members participated
exclusively in a semi-structured interview.
3.1.3 Interview Seings. The interviews were held in two possible
ways, depending on the individual’s preference, either in a separate
room, away from noise and sensory stimuli, or in their own class-
room, if the individual felt more comfortable. In either case, this
choice was geared towards putting the interviewee at ease, being
careful to maintain an informal tone and not merely addressing
questions for the research, but also including chatting moments. All
21 interviews were conducted individually, thus without proxies
for the clients. Additionally, depending on the availability of the
researchers involved, each interview had between 1 to 3 researchers
present. Specically, if more than one researcher was present, only
one interviewed while the others took notes on the computer from
far away to avoid disturbing.
3.1.4 Interview Length. Due to the limited time available for each
individual interviewed, the duration of the interviews was con-
strained. Each interview with clients lasted between 6 and 25 min-
utes, with an average of 15 minutes, respecting their schedule, and
the interviews with educators took between 25 minutes and 1 hour,
with an average of 35 minutes.
3.1.5 Ethical Clearance, Data Storage and Protection. Both the in-
stitution and the university’s ethics committee approved the study.
The institution was responsible for carefully explaining what the
study entailed and obtaining participants’ consent. In addition, re-
searchers made sure participants were aware they could quit at any
time. During interviews, the audio was recorded and subsequently
transcribed, allowing us to collect a total of over 8 hours of records.
The entire process was conducted with strict adherence to the in-
terviewees’ privacy, ensuring their anonymity through the use of
IDs for identication, as required for the ethics approval.
3.1.6 Data Analysis. At the end of each of the ve days, researchers
held brief debrieng meetings to discuss the interview outcomes
and begin identifying emerging themes. Starting from the end of the
week, we analysed the data collected from the interviews using their
transcriptions. Initially, using Miro, an online board, we created
sticky notes for each interview, highlighting key elements and
ensuring comparable quotes. A colour coding system was used to
visually distinguish quotes from dierent participants, assigning a
dierent colour to each participant. Subsequently, all sticky notes
were grouped according to common themes. An example of an
emerged theme is shown in Figure 1, illustrating how challenges
mentioned by clients during the interviews were cited. This process
ran concurrently for interviews with both clients and sta members.
Finally, thematic groups from client interviews were compared with
those from educator interviews, revealing overlaps discussed in
Section 5. One month after the interviews, all researchers convened
for a meeting to discuss the emerging results.
Figure 1: Example theme identied using Miro sticky notes
3.1.7 Considerations. The decision to interview clients and some
of their educators was driven by the aim to understand the habits,
preferences, and motivations of the clients by questioning them
directly; while investigating the context of the support centre and
the possibilities it oers through the questions addressed to the
educators. Although interviews were not the sole option provided
to clients, they proved highly benecial by oering a greater op-
portunity to provide reasoning and explore themes that would not
have been addressed in an online survey.
3.2 Participants
Participants were selected based on various criteria, primarily their
availability. Indeed, to take part in the research, participants were

DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Dedò et al.
asked to temporarily suspend their activities at the support centre
and dedicate some time answering questions.
3.2.1 Clients. The interviewed clients were selected by their ed-
ucators, not only based on their availability, but also on the edu-
cator’s assessment of their ability to independently respond to the
questions. For this reason, individuals with intellectual disabilities
who are non-verbal, for instance, were not included in our study,
whereas those with co-existing intellectual and motor disabilities,
visual impairments, or who don’t read were represented. The key
client characteristics relevant to this research are listed in Table 1.
3.2.2 Educators. Educators, on the other hand, were primarily
chosen based on their availability. Eorts were made to include
not only the educators of the interviewed clients but also those
working with other groups, thereby introducing a broader range
of experiences. We sought educators who work with non-verbal
communication clients, individuals with autism, and elderly people
who were not directly interviewed. The relevant characteristics of
educators are listed in Table 2.
3.3 Online Survey
For clients, we created an accessible online survey using Qualtrics,
an online survey platform. The questions posed in the survey mir-
ror those used in the subsequent semi-structured interviews with
clients. To cater to a broader range of individuals with dierent
preferences, each question was presented in easy-to-read language
accompanied by text-to-speech audio. Some questions also included
images, emojis, and colour coding to enhance accessibility. An ex-
ample is provided in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Example of a page of the online survey
3.4 Oral Interviews
For the semi-structured interview, basic questions were initially
dened and then expanded based on the responses provided.
3.4.1 Clients. Regarding the clients, they were rst informed of
the purpose of the questions, which was to understand their use
of technology, and were asked if they preferred to respond to the
questions via an online computer survey or through an oral inter-
view. Due to the researchers’ physical presence, all clients chose
to conduct the interviews orally rather than using a computer.
Clients were informed that the interview would be recorded via
a researcher’s phone and that data would be handled to ensure
privacy and anonymity. Each client was asked their name and age.
They were then asked the following basic questions, which were
then developed according to the individual’s answers: "In your opin-
ion, what is technology?";"Do you have a computer/tablet/phone at
home?";"Do you use a computer/tablet/phone?" If the answer was
armative, the questions continued by exploring the usage context
(where, when, why, how, with whom). With some clients, more
complex questions such as "How do you feel when you use that de-
vice?";"Why don’t you use that device?";"In the future, what would
you like to use that device for?" could also be addressed [
25
]. At
the end of the interview, each client was briey asked how they
felt during the interview and if they enjoyed it, as proven to be
important by Safari et al. [49].
3.4.2 Sta Members. Regarding the interviews with sta members,
they were informed of the study’s objective, which is to understand
their perspectives on how individuals with intellectual disabilities
use technology. They were also informed that the interview would
be recorded via a researcher’s phone and that data would be handled
to ensure privacy and anonymity. Each sta member was asked
for their name and age. The interview was then divided into two
main topics. The rst topic aimed to answer the study’s question
regarding their opinion on clients’ use of technology. The second
topic focused on their personal use of technology within the support
centre. More specically, the questions used as a basis for the rst
interview topic were: "Do the clients you work with use any type of
technology?" If yes, they were asked to contextualise its usage (who,
what, where, when, why, how, with whom); "What is your opinion
on clients’ use of technology?" This involved discussing strengths,
weaknesses, positive and negative aspects, direct experiences (with
concrete examples provided if possible), and any concerns about
potential uses of technology by clients; "Thinking about the future,
what changes would you make?".
For the second topic of the interview, they were asked: "How do
you use technology in your work?" they were again asked to provide
specic examples; "In the future, how do you think technology could
assist you in your work?".
4 FINDINGS
Based on the interviews with clients, we were able to collect the
data, shown in Table 3, regarding the commonly owned and used
devices. For those who appear using a device they do not own, this
usage occurs during some activities in the support centre. Table 4
show the reasons and the eective use for both smartphone and
computer for each client who uses that device. According to the
sta’ experience, limited to the time they spend at the centre, the
guests’ use of technological devices is the following: viewing videos
and photographs, writing, listening to music, using Augmentative
and Alternative Communication (AAC) software, sending and re-
ceiving calls and messages, researching educational topics, playing
games and using social media.
4.1 Unique Viewpoints
Almost all the interviewees mentioned that the answers they gave
were their own perspectives and recognized that each individual is
unique. During the interviews with the sta, the answers always
included an "It depends", as the centre accommodates a multitude

Voices That Maer DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Table 1: Clients general information
ID Gender Age DisabilityaYears of technology usebReads
C1 Man 65-69
Moderate
c
intellectual disability
Mild motor impairments
+10 years Yes
C2 Woman 55-59 Moderate intellectual disability Never use No
C3 Man 60-64 Moderate intellectual disability
Severe visual impairments
+5 years No
C4 Woman 45-49 Moderate intellectual disability +10 years Yes
C5 Woman 55-59 Moderate intellectual disability +5 years No
C6 Woman 20-24 Moderate intellectual disability +10 years Yes
C7 Woman 65-69 Moderate intellectual disability
Mild visual impairments
+10 years Yes
C8 Woman 45-49 Moderate intellectual disability
Severe visual impairments
Severe motor impairments
<1 year Yes
C9 Woman 25-29 Moderate intellectual disability +10 years Yes
C10 Man 35-39 Moderate intellectual disability +10 years Yes
C11 Woman 45-49 Moderate intellectual disability +5 years Yes
C12 Woman 20-24 Moderate intellectual disability
Severe motor impairments
+10 years Yes
aDue to professional condentiality, this is an approximation provided by educators
bRefers to the autonomous use of technological devices
cAccording to APA classication [2]
Table 2: Sta general information
ID Gender Age Years of Years of
Workatechnology use
S1 Woman 45-49 +22 years +20 years
S2 Woman 35-39 12 years +20 years
S3 Woman 35-39 16 years +20 years
S4 Man 45-49 22 years +20 years
S5 Man 35-39 17 years +20 years
S6 Woman 25-29 3 years From adolescence
S7 Woman 25-29 5 years From adolescence
S8 Woman 35-39 1 year +20 years
S9 Woman 60-65 +30 years +15 years
aRefers to working as an educator with individual with intellectual disabilities
of individuals with dierent preferences and characteristics, as C1
also exposed "Everyone has a head that thinks. I cannot get into their
head".
4.2 Technology Engagement
Among the sta, it often transpired how important it is that centre
guests have interest in what they do, not only regarding technology
usage. This has a direct impact on the level of attention shown
and is also reected in the willingness to learn how to use, among
others, technology. On the other side, some clients expressed their
willingness to own technological devices based on the interest and
use they think they might have. This occasionally stems from seeing
others use technology, which was also seen in [38].
Table 3: Common devices owned and used by clients
ID Smartphone Computer Tablet
Own Use Own Use Own Use
C1 No No No Yes No No
C2 No No No No No No
C3 No No No No Yes Yes
C4 Yes Yes No Yes No No
C5 No No No No No Yes
C6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
C7 Yes Yes No Yes No No
C8 Yes Yes No No No No
C9 Yes Yes No No No No
C10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
C11 Yes Yes No No No No
C12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.3 Engaging with Social Robots
Three clients talked about the social robot they interacted with,
Alpha Mini, expressing enthusiasm and presenting their ideas about
its possible applications. Two clients proposed using the robot to
exercise or dance, imitating its gestures; one of them also suggested
using robots in a hospital context or to battle loneliness. C12 on the
other hand, in addition to the excitement given by the novelty, ex-
pressed "It’s really nice, but I’m afraid to lose human contact". While
8 sta members reected on the usefulness of the social robot in
the educational context, also proposing various applications, often
linked to activities with groups of users with particular imitative
skills.

DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Dedò et al.
Table 4: Current smartphone and computer use and utility from client’s perspective
ID Smartphone Computer
Use Utility Use Utility
C1aCalls
Talk, communicate, update
with friends on what’s happen-
ing
Search
Learn new things, search po-
etry, poets, writers, paintings,
artists
C4 Calls, messages, photos
Keep in touch with family, send
photos, arrange to meet up
with friends, review photos
Writing Write a periodical, rewrite
C6 Games (memory) Have fun Games, music Have fun
C7 Calls and video calls, search Relax doing researches Writing, search
Learn, rewrite, nd infor-
mation regarding paintings,
movies and TV series,
C8
Calls, messages, social media,
search, photos, movies
Arrange to meet up with
friends, search recipes on so-
cial media, sta teaches possi-
ble uses, images and icons help
to understand
C9 Messages, music, movies
Contact parents, nd music and
listen to favourites songs
Movies, music Listen to favourite music
C10
Calls, messages, search, radio,
games
Communicate with other peo-
ple, exchange messages in
groups sport related, cultivate
passion for meteorology
Social media, games,
music, videos, movies,
TV series
Cultivate passion for videos re-
garding trams, have music al-
ready saved
C11
Calls and video calls, messages,
photos, music
Communicate with loved one,
sta teaches possible uses, nd
music
C12
Calls, messages, social media,
search, photos, music, games
(puzzle)
Keep in touch with friends and
relatives, compensate for the
temporary physical absence of
people, maintain the ability to
write
Write, email
Write tales for children, com-
municate
aUse a landline phone
4.4 Training opportunities
6 out of 9 sta members noted the occurrence of dysfunctional
smartphone use by specic individuals, in particular these individu-
als lack a clear understanding of the common social rules regulating,
for instance, the exchange of calls and messages. Dysfunctional uses
included sending numerous messages or calls to the same contact
and texting with people they had just seen. This, according to the
sta is, with a common consensus, attributable to a lack of train-
ing in the use of the devices, but also links to the interest in using
them. Since all sta members except one acknowledge having a lack
of knowledge regarding technology, the organization of training
sessions explaining the basic use of smartphones, computers and
tablets, for both sta and users of the centre, was often proposed
as a solution to address this deciency. Although no one in the
rst group admitted having a dysfunctional use, 6 out of 11 clients
expressed their willingness to improve their use of technology and
to learn new functionalities for their devices, such as sending text
or audio messages and emails, taking pictures, and having calls and
video calls. As C12 said "Skilled yes, but not excellent, one can always
improve".
4.5 Family Inuence
From the interviews with clients below 40 years old, it emerged how
afternoons are often spent playing games or watching movies. This
was always communicated as a statement, without the interviewee
expressing disagreement with this routine. C7, a participant over
60 years old, expressed their gratitude towards a family member
"If I know anything, I have to thank my sister" referring to her
technological knowledge. 7 sta members expressed their thoughts
on the importance of the use of the devices once the users return
home, particularly if they live with their families. As a matter of
fact, 6 of them, talking about the existence of cases where the screen
at home is used as an entertainment with no time limit, expressed
similar concepts to those of S9 "They are like a replacement for a need,

Voices That Maer DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
but is not that". S5 noted how, however, there are family members
who full the role of facilitators, teaching the functionalities of
personal devices "There is also the family support of those who help,
facilitate".
4.6 Age and Technology Awareness
The three participants over age 60 were very interested in using
technology. Although one of them does not own a personal device,
it’s enthusiastic about using the computer in class, while the other
two own respectively, one a tablet and the other one a smartphone.
A couple of sta members in particular, who work or have worked
with younger user groups (under 30), noted that the newer genera-
tions who join the centre tend to be more familiar with technology,
probably due to the exposure at school, i.e. they are able to switch
on devices, but, more than all other age groups, their educators
perceive they have little awareness and no functional use of it.
4.7 Empowerment Through Peer Support
The awareness of their own abilities is a theme that many clients
were able to elaborate on. Some recognized their abilities in using
a particular device, while others stated that they felt the need for
support when using dierent devices either because they did not
feel they were good enough, or because they had physical impair-
ments for which they felt more comfortable with someone’s help.
In turn, a couple clients make themselves available to help other
users, as bonds within groups are very strong, or their educators,
if they are not technologically procient. A sta member gave the
example of a client who helped a peer learning how to search for
music and now they share moments when they listen to it together.
4.8 Tech Use Fears
From the second group, fears emerged regarding the clients’ use
of technology, motivated both by a possible dysfunctional use of
the devices, which included tapping the screen randomly and, as
previously mentioned, messaging and calling a numerous amount
of time the same contact; and by the possibility of encountering
malicious people on social networks (e.g. haters or predators). In
this regard, S8 thinks that in some occasions "They do not fully
grasp the point of view of outsiders". However, all sta members
were unanimous in stating that their fears should not be a reason
to limit the use of technology, but rather a reason to teach a more
conscious use of it.
4.9 Tech-Related Feelings
Two clients reported feeling relaxed respectively when doing re-
search on their smartphone and watching a lm on television (this
because the client experience physical diculties that make them
fear to touch inadvertently something while watching a lm on a
computer, for instance).
4.10 Identifying Barriers
The perceived diculties exposed by 8 clients are dierent from
one another. Two participants were unable to read and a third and
a fourth one, both over 50 years old, experience diculty reading
when the text is too small, for this reason one of them prefer using
a computer, which has a bigger screen. Two clients, both with phys-
ical impairment, nd it dicult to use the scrolling gesture and
feel frustrated when the device, in their case the smartphone, don’t
react as they wish. Another client, inquiring about the purchase of
a possible computer, found the prices prohibitive. Other diculties
that came up regarded the action of charging the phone, sending
messages, taking photos and the fear of forgetting the device some-
where or making the phone crash by pressing something wrong,
as expressed by C8 "I have diculties with the screen, sometimes it
crashes" referring to her new smartphone.
From the sta perspective, there was a consensus regarding the
lack of manual skills by some users, meaning the scrolling gesture
and virtual button pressing. Three sta members acknowledged
small screens are a huge issue for clients who experience dicul-
ties with sight, while two other sta members nd there is still a
lack of accessibility within technology: the existing features often
have to be personalized through a cumbersome process and, sadly,
new ones are discovered by chance with years of delay. Other men-
tioned diculties were the barrier given from the rst approach
to technology and, in a related way, the diculty to succeed in a
task that requires many steps, like signing up procedures; in the
eld of information, the ability to recognize reliable content; the
prohibitive costs for some; the limits of using the web as it is mainly
textual; advertisement pop-ups which can lead to confusion and
the challenge faced by those who are unable to read.
The solutions both groups came up with included the adoption of
text-to-speech functionalities and audio messages, the use of bigger
displays and bigger fonts along with a wider use of non-textual
content, the creation of a tool "Like T9 in terms of usage, but kept
simple, with a few words, perhaps a vocabulary of the most frequently
used words" by the user, as S9 suggested. Two sta members also
proposed the reintroduction of physical buttons, at least to ease
answering to calls. The other solutions proposed linked with either
training or receiving occasional support when needed.
4.11 Balancing Priorities
Being a theme analysed only by the second group, the importance
of prioritizing technology was widely discussed, with initially con-
icting opinions. The use of technology has been dened by three
sta members as useful, and by others as intuitive, helpful, a power-
ful tool, giving a positive impact and having big potentialities. Just
S4 showed initial reluctance discussing "They must rst be given the
tools they need to live: personal autonomy, knowing how to behave,
knowing how to eat, knowing how to make tea for example, then it’s
all well and good if it is used" [technology]. Other sta members
expressed similar concepts, mentioning the need to set target ob-
jectives and analysing the capabilities, interests and priorities of
each user. This brought three sta members, who work in groups
where basic topics such as self-awareness, time awareness and
self-management from a corporal, emotional and relational point
of view still need to be worked on, to openly admit that, within
their groups, the use of technology is not currently a priority. The
experience of one sta member stands out for its originality: based
on a goal agreed with the parents, one client learned, through the
use of the voice-controlled Alexa timer, to manage the waiting time

DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Dedò et al.
for the infusion of the tea for breakfast. This led to an autonomy in
the preparation of breakfast.
Despite the priorities each educator can have, some of them
experience a lack of technology for their groups due to a small
amount of devices distributed only in some classes. Above all, each
educator reported issues with the internet connection.
4.12 Balancing Tools
The comparison between traditional and technological tools showed
that, although tradition is still rooted in both study groups, there
is a certain degree of equilibrium. Two participants of the rst
group explained how they used the computer and the smartphone
respectively to make researches, being this easier than consulting
printed material. At the same time, both highlighted not having
preferences between physical or digital support, in C1 words "I
prefer both of them". Three sta members also developed this topic
by talking about their own experience. Each of them, for slightly
dierent reasons, enjoyed physical or digital support depending on
the occasion. For instance, for reading or studying from books, they
all prefer them being printed, while for more volatile knowledge,
which, for instance, involves the use of a search engine, they prefer
using a digital support. Questioning S2 about having more options,
the answer was "One thing should not exclude the other. There should
be alternatives so that everyone can choose what suits them best".
4.13 Variety of Options
Another comparison was made between having only one or multiple
digital features possibilities, such as audio and text or text and
icons/images, following the concept behind AAC. A couple clients
dived into the subject expressing their feelings of happiness about
having more options. C12, talking about their point of view about
how inclusiveness can be seen in little things such as the possibility
of having more options, expressed the preference of having both
possibilities of writing and recording a message "I don’t want to lose
the ability I have".
4.14 Purposeful Games
An interesting topic, discussed under dierent lights, was rst
brought up by S1 "The games area is very complex and intricate" and
again "Sometimes we play games for small children, but the game for
small children has dierent characteristics than the game intended for
also adults" "Let us remember they are adults in any case, we must also
respect their identity as adults". This pretty much capture the essence
of all the discussions arisen also by other sta members. In their
opinion, at home, especially younger users, reduce themselves to
spend a signicant amount of time in front of a screen, among other
things, playing games which rules are often not fully understood.
This entertainment view of games is opposed to a more didactic
vision. When they are at the support centre, sta members promote
simpler and more educational games, both online and physical.
Among the opinions regarding the theme, some educators were
concerned with the purposes and the objectives behind the selection
of a certain game to play. The mainly chosen games are memory,
cross words, riddles, logic and mnemonic games, with a preference
for interactive ones.
An idea suggested by a sta member was to use a Tamagotchi-
like game to raise awareness among clients about the concept of
"taking care", which they could then carry over into their own
personal care.
4.15 Client Reections on Interviews
At the end of the interviews, all clients were asked how they felt
during the interview and how they thought it went. The answers
to both questions were all positive. To the question "How do you
felt during the interview?", 6 clients answered "Good", one answered
"Calm", one "Shy" and one "Tired", due to a previous gym class.
To the question "How do you think the interview went?", 8 clients
answered "I liked it", one "It was easy" and "It went well".
5 DISCUSSION
Based on the ndings, we decided to shed light on the dierent
perceptions that clients and sta have regarding the use and useful-
ness of technology with respect to three macro-domains: personal
autonomy, education and entertainment.
5.1 Individuality as a Strength
As observed in the study by Tsatsou [
59
], various individual pref-
erences and abilities inuence technology usage and need to be
considered to promote its eective use. Understanding individual
needs is crucial for designing useful solutions. As highlighted by
several participants, it is important to comprehend diverse needs
and preferences to make technology more accessible for individuals
with varying abilities. As suggested by clients, oering multiple
options is preferable to a single, standardized option, as it enables
a more personalized technology experience.
5.2 Autonomous Learning
We have seen that both computers and smartphones are used by
clients to research and inform themselves on topics of interest
to them. This allows us to understand that the use of the Inter-
net, via search engines or social media, is a powerful tool already
used by some [
20
]. However, as reported by some clients and sta
members, there are still limitations to be recognized and addressed.
Searches made by clients often lead to textual results and this can
lead to diculties in understanding, especially with complex texts.
In general, there is a lack of images and there are currently no solu-
tions for translating text into simplied language or AAC. Those
who cannot read are then excluded from the possibility of learn-
ing autonomously. While those with visual impairments may nd
it dicult to increase the size of the text by themselves. Finding
solutions in this direction would lead to potential autonomous use.
5.3 Learn by Doing, Together
Being able to rely on people who support your learning is, under-
standably, of great importance to some clients. As seen, some clients
reported having learned features of their devices through the help
of family members, sta and in one case, peers. While it is reported
by sta that peer learning is not particularly used at the centre,
although there are strong bonds within the groups that would allow
it, as has already been demonstrated in other contexts [
10
,
11
], it
was proven to be valuable in the case of one client who learned

Voices That Maer DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
how to search for music from a peer. In the future, the need for sta
[
37
,
42
] and client training could be addressed through workshops
targeting a group that already has a basis in the use of technology,
including sta and clients. And, in a second stage, through the orga-
nization of activities where peer learning is applied, this knowledge
could be extended to other clients in the same group, with whom
the subject already has a connection. This would also create the
possibility of learning new teaching and autonomy skills.
5.4 Autonomy Goals
An important goal for many sta members is the development of
a journey towards a greater personal autonomy. This can be sup-
ported through the use of technology [
61
]. As seen in the ndings
Section 4.11, there has already been a successful rst use, namely
the Alexa timer for time management, to achieve a small autonomy
goal. It is therefore necessary in the future to promote and investi-
gate how technology can full these needs by providing accessible
and user-friendly solutions.
5.5 Providing Entertainment Choices
A wide use of technology as entertainment has been reported for
younger generations. Sometimes, some family members are respon-
sible for the long time spent in front of a screen watching videos or
playing games. For clients this is not a cause for concern, but it is for
sta, who sometimes see a dysfunctional use in the excessive time
spent in front of a screen. Undoubtedly, relaxing and cultivating
passions is a fundamental component of young people’s lives, but
this is often the only alternative oered, as seen in Section 4.5. Al-
though the creation of games suitable for this audience has already
begun around 2003 [
52
,
56
,
57
], eorts should be made to update
and continue this work to provide more stimuli and alternatives to
choose from, helping clients to be active in a conscious choice, also
with respect to their own interests.
6 LIMITATIONS
During the interviews, some participants brought up interesting
topics which we, researchers, had not originally thought of, such
as the role of games within a learning process. These topics, in our
opinion, would need more investigation, especially from the clients’
perspective. Furthermore, the interviews were conducted with a
majority of clients who are familiar with technology. It would also
be interesting to further investigate the reasons why other clients
have not yet come into contact with technology.
7 CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study was to interview 21 participants from a
support centre, including both the clients and the sta members
who work with them, in order to understand the clients’ use of
technology and to gather the sta’s perspectives on this usage.
The study concludes that technology holds signicant potential to
improve the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities, empha-
sizing the need for personalized solutions that cater to individual
needs. It highlights the importance of training and support for both
clients and educators to enhance the eective use of technology.
The research also underscores the impact of family and commu-
nity in shaping technology use and advocates for the development
of peer learning opportunities to foster a supportive learning en-
vironment. Moreover, it suggests balancing entertainment with
productive uses of technology and stresses the need for ongoing
research to explore further and address the challenges faced by
clients. Future eorts should focus on designing technology that
supports personal autonomy and aligns with the developmental
goals of the users, ensuring that it is both accessible and engaging.
Despite the comprehensive range of responses collected, logis-
tical and time constraints prevented the involvement of clients’
relatives and other relevant parties. In the future, extending this
work to include their perspectives could provide further insights
and establish connections with those of clients and educators.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for fund-
ing this research and our wonderful participants and educators at
Anas.
REFERENCES
[1]
Kristin Alfredsson Ågren, Anette Kjellberg, and Helena Hemmingsson. 2020.
Internet opportunities and risks for adolescents with intellectual disabilities: A
comparative study of parents’ perceptions. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational
Therapy 27, 8 (2020), 601–613.
[2]
American Psychiatric Association. 2022. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders. American Psychiatric Association Publishing. 37–42 pages.
[3]
Shiri Azenkot, Margot J Hanley, and Catherine M Baker. 2021. How accessibility
practitioners promote the creation of accessible products in large companies.
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–27.
[4]
Saminda Sundeepa Balasuriya, Laurianne Sitbon, and Margot Brereton. 2022. A
support worker perspective on use of new technologies by people with intel-
lectual disabilities. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 15, 3
(2022), 1–21.
[5]
Colin Barnes. 2019. Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present
and future. In Routledge handbook of disability studies. Routledge, 14–31.
[6]
Filip Bircanin, Margot Brereton, Laurianne Sitbon, Bernd Ploderer, Andrew Azaa-
banye Bayor, and Stewart Koplick. 2021. Including adults with severe intellectual
disabilities in co-design through active support. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.
[7]
Fernando HF Botelho. 2021. Accessibility to digital technology: Virtual barriers,
real opportunities. Assistive Technology 33, sup1 (2021), 27–34.
[8]
Margret Buchholz, Ulrika Ferm, and Kristina Holmgren. 2020. Support persons’
views on remote communication and social media for people with communicative
and cognitive disabilities. Disability and rehabilitation 42, 10 (2020), 1439–1447.
[9]
Allison C Carey, Mark G Friedman, and Diane Nelson Bryen. 2005. Use of
electronic technologies by people with intellectual disabilities. Mental retardation
43, 5 (2005), 322–333.
[10]
Erik W Carter, Jenny R Gustafson, Melissa A Sreckovic, Jessica R Dykstra Stein-
brenner, Nigel P Pierce, Aimee Bord, Aaron Stabel, Sally Rogers, Alicia Czerw,
and Teagan Mullins. 2017. Ecacy of peer support interventions in general
education classrooms for high school students with autism spectrum disorder.
Remedial and Special Education 38, 4 (2017), 207–221.
[11]
Erik W Carter, Colleen K Moss, Jennifer Asmus, Ethan Fesperman, Molly Cooney,
Matthew E Brock, Gregory Lyons, Heartley B Huber, and Lori B Vincent. 2015.
Promoting inclusion, social connections, and learning through peer support
arrangements. Teaching Exceptional Children 48, 1 (2015), 9–18.
[12]
Darren D Chadwick, Sally Quinn, and Chris Fullwood. 2017. Perceptions of
the risks and benets of Internet access and use by people with intellectual
disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 45, 1 (2017), 21–31.
[13]
Ryan Colin Gibson, Mark D. Dunlop, and Matt-Mouley Bouamrane. 2020. Lessons
from expert focus groups on how to better support adults with mild intellectual
disabilities to engage in co-design. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM
SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–12.
[14]
Laura Davy. 2015. Philosophical inclusive design: Intellectual disability and the
limits of individual autonomy in moral and political theory. Hypatia 30, 1 (2015),
132–148.
[15]
Melissa Dawe. 2006. Desperately seeking simplicity: how young adults with
cognitive disabilities and their families adopt assistive technologies. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 1143–1152.
[16]
Melissa Dawe. 2007. Design methods to engage individuals with cognitive
disabilities and their families. In the Science of Design Workshop, ACM Conference

DSAI 2024, November 13–15, 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Dedò et al.
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).
[17]
C Renuga Devi and Ratan Sarkar.2019. Assistivetechnology for educating persons
with intellectual disability. European Journal of Special Education Research (2019).
[18]
World Health Organization. Disability and Health. 2024.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health.
Accessed: 2024-06-14.
[19]
Alan Foley and Beth A Ferri. 2012. Technology for people, not disabilities:
ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs
12, 4 (2012), 192–200.
[20]
Sarah Glencross, Jonathan Mason, Mary Katsikitis, and Kenneth Mark Green-
wood. 2021. Internet use by people with intellectual disability: Exploring digital
inequality—A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Network-
ing 24, 8 (2021), 503–520.
[21]
Peter Gregor, David Sloan, and Alan F Newell. 2005. Disability and technology:
building barriers or creating opportunities? Advances in computers 64 (2005),
283–346.
[22]
Leandro S Guedes, Jacquie Johnstone, Kirsten Ellis, and Monica Landoni. 2024.
Creative technologies in action: Empowering individuals with intellectual dis-
abilities. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special
Needs. Springer, 193–200.
[23]
Vanessa N Heitplatz, Christian Bühler, and Matthias R Hastall. 2019. Caregivers’
inuence on smartphone usage of people with cognitive disabilities: an explo-
rative case study in Germany. In International Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction. Springer, 98–115.
[24]
Marion Hersh and Stella Mouroutsou. 2019. Learning technology and disabil-
ity—Overcoming barriers to inclusion: Evidence from a multicountry study.
British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 6 (2019), 3329–3344.
[25]
Andrea Hollomotz. 2018. Successful interviews with people with intellectual
disability. Qualitative Research 18, 2 (2018), 153–170.
[26]
Michael Kipp, Quan Nguyen, Alexis Heloir, and Silke Matthes. 2011. Assessing
the deaf user perspective on sign language avatars. In The proceedings of the
13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility.
107–114.
[27]
Varsha Koushik and Shaun Kane. 2023. Ability+ Motivation: Understanding
Factors that Inuence People with Cognitive Disabilities in Regularly Practicing
Daily Activities. In Proceedings of the 20th International Web for All Conference.
122–133.
[28]
Varsha Koushik and Shaun K Kane. 2019. " It Broadens My Mind" Empowering
People with Cognitive Disabilities through Computing Education. In Proceedings
of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12.
[29]
Deborah Lupton and Wendy Seymour. 2000. Technology, selfhood and physical
disability. Social science & medicine 50, 12 (2000), 1851–1862.
[30]
Kelly Mack, Emma McDonnell, Dhruv Jain, Lucy Lu Wang, Jon E. Froehlich,
and Leah Findlater. 2021. What do we mean by “accessibility research”? A
literature survey of accessibility papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. In
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
1–18.
[31]
Pallab K Maulik, Maya N Mascarenhas, Colin D Mathers, Tarun Dua, and Shekhar
Saxena. 2011. Prevalence of intellectual disability: a meta-analysis of population-
based studies. Research in developmental disabilities 32, 2 (2011), 419–436.
[32]
Roy McConkey, Sarah Craig, and Caraíosa Kelly. 2019. The prevalence of intel-
lectual disability: A comparison of national census and register records. Research
in Developmental Disabilities 89 (2019), 69–75.
[33]
Aoife McNicholl, Hannah Casey, Deirdre Desmond, and Pamela Gallagher. 2021.
The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher
education: a systematic review. Disability and rehabilitation: assistive Technology
16, 2 (2021), 130–143.
[34]
Janis Lena Meissner, John Vines, Janice McLaughlin, Thomas Nappey, Jekaterina
Maksimova, and Peter Wright. 2017. Do-it-yourself empowerment as experi-
enced by novice makers with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on
designing interactive systems. 1053–1065.
[35]
Hursula Mengue-Topio, Marion Duthoit, Laurie Letalle, and Youssef Guedira.
2024. Acceptability of Assistive Technology Promoting Independent Travel of
People with Intellectual Disabilities (SAMDI PROJECT): A Focus Group Study
from Support Sta. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
Springer, 195–206.
[36]
HLisaStevens. History of assistive technology. Timetoast. 2024.
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/history-of-assistive-technology/. Ac-
cessed: 2024-06-14.
[37]
Cynthia M Okolo and Je Diedrich. 2014. Twenty-ve years later: How is
technology used in the education of students with disabilities? Results of a
statewide study. Journal of Special Education Technology 29, 1 (2014), 1–20.
[38]
Cian O’Connor and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2010. Making video mundane: intel-
lectual disability and the use of camcorders. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
14 (2010), 197–208.
[39]
Susan B Palmer, Michael L Wehmeyer, Daniel K Davies, and Steven E Stock.
2012. Family members’ reports of the technology use of family members with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research 56, 4 (2012), 402–414.
[40]
Sarah Parsons, Harry Daniels, Jill Porter, and Christopher Robertson. 2006. The
use of ICT by adults with learning disabilities in day and residential services.
British Journal of Educational Technology 37, 1 (2006), 31–44.
[41]
Alisha Pradhan, Kanika Mehta, and Leah Findlater. 2018. " Accessibility Came
by Accident" Use of Voice-Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants by People
with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on human factors in
computing systems. 1–13.
[42]
Camilla Ramsten and Helena Blomberg. 2019. Sta as Advocates, Moral Guardians
and Enablers-Using ICT for Independence and Participation in Disability Services.
Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 21, 1 (2019).
[43]
Camilla Ramsten, Lene Martin, Munir Dag, and Lena Marmstål Hammar. 2020.
Information and communication technology use in daily life among young adults
with mild-to-moderate intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities
24, 3 (2020), 289–308.
[44]
Camilla Ramsten, Lene Martin, Munir Dag, and Lena Marmstål Hammar. 2019.
A balance of social inclusion and risks: Sta perceptions of information and
communication technology in the daily life of young adults with mild to moderate
intellectual disability in a social care context. Journal of Policy and Practice in
Intellectual Disabilities 16, 3 (2019), 171–179.
[45]
Karin Renblad. 2003. How do people with intellectual disabilities think about em-
powerment and information and communication technology (ICT)? International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research 26, 3 (2003), 175–182.
[46] Yvonne Rogers and Gary Marsden. 2013. Does He Take Sugar? Moving beyond
the Rhetoric of Compassion. Interactions 20, 4 (jul 2013), 48–57.
[47]
Leandro S. Guedes, Saminda Sundeepa Balasuriya, Laurianne Sitbon, and Monica
Landoni. 2023. Artistic Fusion: Exploring the potential of AI-Generated artwork
in enabling creative expression with people with intellectual disabilities. In
Proceedings of the 35th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. 648–
656.
[48] Leandro S. Guedes, Irene Zanardi, Marilina Mastrogiuseppe, Stefania Span, and
Monica Landoni. 2023. Co-designing a Museum Application with People with
Intellectual Disabilities: Findings and Accessible Redesign. In Proceedings of the
European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2023. 1–8.
[49]
Mugula Chris Safari, Soe Wass, and Elin Thygesen. 2021. ‘I Got To Answer
the Way I Wanted To’: Intellectual Disabilities and Participation in Technology
Design Activities. (2021).
[50]
Robert L Schalock, Ruth Luckasson, and Marc J Tassé. 2021. DEFINING, DI-
AGNOSING, CLASSIFYING, AND PLANNING SUPPORTS FOR PEOPLE WITH
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: AN EMERGING CONSENSUS. Siglo Cero 52, 3
(2021).
[51]
Robert L. Schalock, Ruth Luckasson, and Marc J. Tasse. 2021. Intellectual disability:
Denition, diagnosis, classication, and systems of supports. American Association
on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
[52]
IGDA Game Accessibility SIG. 2021. https://igda-gasig.org/how/. Accessed:
2024-04-20.
[53]
Laurianne Sitbon. 2018. Engaging IT students in co-design with people with
intellectual disability. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6.
[54]
Leandro Soares Guedes, Ryan Colin Gibson, Kirsten Ellis, Laurianne Sitbon,
and Monica Landoni. 2022. Designing with and for People with Intellectual
Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference
on Computers and Accessibility. 1–6.
[55]
Leandro Soares Guedes and Monica Landoni. 2021. Meeting participants with
intellectual disabilities during covid-19 pandemic: Challenges and improvisation.
In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers
and Accessibility. 1–4.
[56]
Morten Tollefsen and Are Flyen. 2006. Internet and accessible entertainment.
In Computers Helping People with Special Needs: 10th International Conference,
ICCHP 2006, Linz, Austria, July 11-13, 2006. Proceedings 10. Springer, 396–402.
[57]
Morten Tollefsen and Magne Lunde. 2004. Entertaining software for young per-
sons with disabilities. In International Conference on Computers for Handicapped
Persons. Springer, 240–247.
[58]
Karen Toth, N De Lacy, and BH King. [n.d.]. Intellectual disability. Dulcan’s
textbook of child and adolescent psychiatry ([n. d.]), 105–133.
[59]
Panayiota Tsatsou. 2020. Digital inclusion of people with disabilities: a qualitative
study of intra-disability diversity in the digital realm. Behaviour & Information
Technology 39, 9 (2020), 995–1010.
[60]
John Vines, Roisin McNaney, Rachel Clarke, Stephen Lindsay, John McCarthy,
Steve Howard, Mario Romero, and Jayne Wallace. 2013. Designing for-and with-
vulnerable people. In CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. 3231–3234.
[61]
Michael L Wehmeyer, Daniel K Davies, Steven E Stock, and Shea Tanis. 2020.
Applied cognitive technologies to support the autonomy of people with intellec-
tual and developmental disabilities. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders 4
(2020), 389–399.