My previous research into Valencia et al. (2019) raised a question that I wanted to investigate further.

Their systematic review of 94 studies states that previous research has identified a positive disposition towards technology and computer-based learning among many autistic people. Importantly, they suggest that this may relate to the environment technology creates: interactions can be predictable and structured, helping users maintain routines without affecting their comfort.

Rather than simply accepting the statement that autistic people have an “affinity” with technology, I wanted to understand what characteristics of technology might contribute to this relationship.

This led me further into the research.

Parsons, Mitchell and Leonard — Virtual Environments and Autism

One of the areas repeatedly appearing within this earlier research is virtual environments.

Research by Parsons, Mitchell and Leonard explored whether virtual environments could provide autistic people with a space in which situations could be experienced and learned without all of the variables present in real-world environments.

This interested me because virtual environments can potentially provide something physical environments cannot: control over the experience.

Later literature discussing this work identifies several potential advantages of virtual environments for autistic users, including predictable repetition, adaptability to the individual and control over sensory/input stimuli.

This feels important in relation to the idea raised by Valencia et al. Technology is not necessarily useful simply because it is digital. Instead, digital environments can change the conditions under which somebody experiences information or learns about an environment.

A situation can potentially be: repeated, paused, experienced safely, made predictable, adapted to the individual and experienced before encountering the real situation.

There is also evidence that autistic participants can understand and learn within these environments. Parsons, Mitchell and Leonard's later research found improvements in some participants' judgements about social situations following virtual-environment experience, although this does not mean that learning automatically transfers to every real-world context.

This made control particularly interesting to me. If part of technology's usefulness comes from creating controlled and predictable experiences, I wanted to know whether control and routine appear elsewhere in research concerning autistic people's everyday environments, rather than only in educational VR experiments.

Rapp et al. (2018) — Designing Technology for Spatial Needs: Routines, Control and Social Competences of People with Autism

This paper moves closer to the territory I am interested in because it looks beyond learning applications and towards autistic people's everyday movement through physical environments.

The researchers interviewed 12 autistic people about their spatial needs and experiences of urban environments, eventually using the findings to develop considerations for designing technology that could support everyday movement.

What immediately interested me was the shift in perspective.

Rather than starting with ‘How can technology correct an autistic difficulty?’, the research begins to consider what characteristics of an environment create difficulty, and how could technology give the individual greater ability to navigate it? This feels much closer to the direction of my own project. It also introduces routines and control as significant ideas when considering autistic people's relationships with space.

Technology can provide particular qualities → structure, predictability and control → which may respond to particular autistic needs.

However, I realised there was a problem emerging in the literature. A large amount of autism-and-technology research appears to start with the assumption that technology should teach, correct or compensate for something. That made me question whose needs these technologies are actually addressing. Are autistic people themselves asking for these technologies? Or are researchers designing technology around what they believe autistic people need?

Spiel et al. (2019) — Agency of Autistic Children in Technology Research: A Critical Literature Review

This paper gave me an important counterpoint to the previous research. Spiel et al. critically reviewed technology research involving autistic children and examined what these technologies were actually being designed to achieve. They identified technologies covering areas including behaviour analysis, assistive technology, education, social skills, therapy and wellbeing. However, their criticism is particularly important. They argue that much autism technology research has historically been influenced by a medical/deficit model of autism. As a result, technologies can be designed around neurotypical expectations and aimed at changing autistic behaviour rather than supporting the autistic person's own needs, interests and agency.

In some cases, the autistic child who is supposedly the beneficiary of the technology effectively becomes a secondary audience, because the purpose of the technology has been defined externally by researchers, clinicians, parents or educators. This changed how I interpreted the previous research.

The fact that technology can provide predictable and structured environments does not automatically mean that every technological intervention is useful or desirable.

There is an important distinction between technology designed to make autistic people behave more neurotypically and technology that gives autistic people greater agency over their own experience. For my project, the second is much more relevant.

This made me want to return to the actual design characteristics of digital experiences. If I am interested in technology because of the control it might offer autistic users, what does research say a positive autistic user experience should actually contain? Interestingly, Valencia continued this research after the original 2019 review.

Valencia, Rusu and Botella (2021) — User Experience Factors for People with Autism Spectrum Disorder

This feels like the point where the research trail becomes particularly relevant to design.

Rather than simply saying autistic people have an affinity with technology, Valencia, Rusu and Botella attempted to identify specific UX characteristics that should be considered when designing digital systems for autistic people.

They developed nine proposed factors which were Engaging, Predictable, Structured, Interactive, Generalizable, Customizable, Sense-aware, Attention retaining and Frustration free. Some of these immediately stand out in relation to my research.

Predictable - The researchers argue that systems should create a predictable environment and provide users with a high level of control.

Structured - Information, navigation and interactions should be clear, simple and consistent, creating a more reliable environment for the user.

Sense-aware -Digital experiences should consider differences in sensory processing rather than assuming that the same visual, auditory or physical stimulation will work for everyone.

What Has This Research Trail Actually Told Me?

I started this research with quite a simple observation. I had noticed autistic children and adults around me frequently using tablets, computers, games and online communication, while my own questionnaire participants had repeatedly suggested digital forms of travel support. Initially I wondered whether autistic people simply had a stronger preference for technology. Following the literature has made me realise that this is too simplistic.

There is evidence within the literature of positive engagement with technology among autistic people, but what interests me more now is why certain digital environments might work well. Valencia et al.'s original review points towards predictability and structure. Research into virtual environments adds repeatability, safety and control of stimuli. Rapp et al. brings control and routines into everyday physical environments. Valencia's later UX research develops this further into predictability, structure, customisation, sensory awareness and error management. Spiel et al. also gives me an important warning: I should not assume that because technology has been widely designed for autistic people, those technologies necessarily reflect what autistic people themselves want. Agency has to remain central.

Certain characteristics of digital environments may give autistic people greater predictability, structure, customisation and control.

International travel often contains almost the opposite characteristics: changing information, unfamiliar environments, inconsistent procedures, sensory demands, time pressure and situations outside the traveller's control.

I am not yet concluding that technology is the solution.

What I have established is something more useful: The qualities that technology can provide may be relevant to some of the qualities autistic people need when navigating unpredictable environments. That gives me a much stronger foundation for asking what role, if any, technology could play within the experience of independent international travel