This webinar was particularly useful because it showed examples of previous student work and helped me understand how the Critical Report should connect directly to Studio Practice. Rather than treating the written report and final design as two separate outcomes, the strongest projects used research to gradually build an argument for why their final design response was needed.

My main takeaway was that I do not need to decide my outcome too early. Although I am currently considering an airport accessibility app, my research should first establish the problem, investigate existing responses and identify a genuine gap.

Initial Reflections

The previous projects demonstrated a clear progression:

Research question → understanding the subject → existing approaches → primary research → identifying a gap → design response → testing and refinement

This made me think differently about my own project. Instead of starting with an app idea and then seeking evidence to justify it, I need to let the research determine the most appropriate design intervention.

Building an Argument

One of the strongest lessons was how previous students structured their reports so that each section naturally led to the next.

For my project, this could progress through:

• neurodiversity and autism
• accessibility and international travel
• independence and travel
• barriers experienced by autistic adults
• airports as a particularly demanding environment
• existing airport accessibility support
• primary research and lived experience
• identifying what is currently missing
• determining what graphic design could realistically address

The final design should therefore be the result of the research, rather than something decided beforehand.

Researching Existing Design

A particularly useful example investigated existing digital platforms before proposing a new approach. This highlighted that I need to look beyond academic literature and critically examine what already exists within airports.

This could include:

• airport apps
• visual airport guides
• Special Assistance
• Sunflower Lanyard schemes
• quiet-space information
• sensory maps
• communication cards
• airport wayfinding
• existing accessibility initiatives

Rather than simply recording that these exist, I need to consider who they are designed for, what barriers they address, what they do well and what is still missing.

This comparison could become an important part of identifying my design gap.

Connecting Evidence to Design

Another important lesson was that design decisions should be traceable back to research.

For example, if my final response includes:

• visual security instructions — there should be evidence that security procedures or uncertainty are a barrier
• quiet-space information — this should connect to sensory research
• additional journey-time planning — this should relate to processing, preparation, breaks or recovery
• discreet communication with staff — this should respond to evidence around communication during overwhelm
• personalised accessibility settings — this should reflect the variety of autistic experiences and support needs

This would make the project much stronger because each feature would have a clear reason for existing.

Personal Experience and Primary Research

The webinar also showed that personal experience can have a place within academic research when it is handled critically.

My own experiences travelling with and supporting my sister have helped me notice potential problems with airports, preparation, timing, sensory environments, and support. These observations can help me identify questions worth investigating, but they cannot be treated as evidence that every autistic traveller has the same experience.

I therefore need to compare my observations with:

• autistic adults' lived experiences
• My psychologist's research
• academic literature
• existing airport accessibility research

Where these different forms of research begin to overlap, a much stronger design opportunity may emerge.

Design Does Not Need to Solve Everything

Another useful reflection was that a design project need not provide a single complete solution to a complex problem.

My research is increasingly showing that autistic travel accessibility is a "spider web of things", involving sensory environments, uncertainty, communication, information, staff understanding, physical spaces and individual needs.

An app could potentially help with:

• preparation
• predictability
• accessible information
• communication
• wayfinding
• finding support

However, it cannot remove airport noise, crowds, delays, security policies or poor staff understanding on its own.

This has helped me reframe the possible outcome as a design intervention addressing specific barriers within a much larger accessibility system, rather than claiming that one app can make airports completely accessible.

Visual Communication within the Report

The previous projects also demonstrated that the Critical Report can still feel like the work of a graphic designer. Images, diagrams, data and design experiments can become part of the research rather than simply decoration.

Useful visual material for my report could include:

• research mind maps
• airport journey maps
• screenshots of existing accessibility systems
• photographs of airport environments
• data visualisations
• participant themes
• design experiments
• prototypes and testing outcomes

Each visual should contribute to the argument being made.

Key Takeaways

• The research should lead to the design, not the other way around.
• My app should remain an emerging possibility, rather than a fixed solution.
• I need to analyse existing airport accessibility systems critically.
• Primary research will be important for narrowing the project scope.
• Personal experience can inform research, but it should be compared with broader evidence.
• Every significant feature of the final design should have an evidence trail behind it.
• The project does not need to solve every aspect of autistic travel accessibility.
• The Critical Report should explain why the final design response is necessary.

Where This Leaves My Project

I have completed much of the broader understanding-the-field stage. My next stage is to bring together existing solutions, primary research and literature to identify the specific gap.

Rather than continuing to collect large amounts of general autism research, I need to start asking:

What are autistic adults telling me? What do airports currently provide? And what remains unresolved between the two?