While developing the Critical Report, I have also been thinking more carefully about where I sit within this project. The research has moved into areas such as physiology, biosensing, AI and neurotechnology, which could easily make the project feel as though it belongs more to science or engineering than graphic design.

I do not think my role is to become the scientist building the sensor.

My role is to think about how a complex technological system is understood, experienced and controlled by the person using it.

Graphic Design Beyond Visual Styling

I am interested in graphic design as more than producing the visual appearance of an object. Throughout this project, the design problem has increasingly involved information, communication, interaction and systems.

If a bioresponsive system is collecting physiological information, the design questions include how that information is represented, how the traveller understands what the system is doing, how choices are communicated, how feedback is delivered and how the person remains in control.

These are communication problems as much as technical ones.

The visual language will still matter, but it should come from the function of the system rather than being added afterwards. A device intended to support somebody during overload should not present dense information, confusing controls or an unnecessarily medical appearance.

Designing Between the Person and the Technology

This is where I think my role becomes particularly important.

The sensor may collect a biosignal and an algorithm may interpret information, but somebody still needs to decide what the person sees, feels or hears as a result. The interface between the system and the traveller is where graphic and interaction design can shape whether the technology feels understandable, intrusive, calming, confusing, empowering or controlling.

For me, this makes the project less about designing a piece of biotechnology and more about designing the relationship between a person and a bioresponsive system.

My Personal Connection to the Project

The project is also personally connected to my relationship with my sister, Summer. Her experiences were one of the reasons I began questioning whether opportunities for independent travel are equally accessible to autistic adults.

I need to be careful with how I use that connection. Summer is one autistic person and her preferences cannot be treated as representative of autistic adults generally. My primary research and wider literature provide the broader evidence base.

However, thinking about the project through someone I know closely makes abstract design decisions feel much more tangible. It makes me ask whether I would actually expect her to wear the object, understand the feedback, trust what it was doing and feel comfortable using it in public.

That personal lens is useful because it keeps bringing the project back from what is technically possible to what might actually feel acceptable to a person.

Autonomy, Discretion and Trust

Three ideas are becoming particularly important to my position as the designer: autonomy, discretion and trust.

A system that automatically responds without explanation may be technically sophisticated but still remove agency. A highly visible medical-looking wearable may collect accurate data but make somebody feel singled out. A system that stores sensitive physiological information without clear control could undermine trust completely.

These are not secondary aesthetic questions. They are part of whether the design is accessible.

As I move into prototyping, I want to keep asking whether each decision gives the traveller more control or quietly takes it away.

What I Want My Role to Be

I see my role as translating complex research and emerging technology into something that can be understood and used without demanding specialist knowledge from the traveller.

That means I need to work across visual communication, interaction, materiality, information hierarchy and system design while continuing to be critical of what the technology can and cannot claim.

The project should not use technology because it feels futuristic. The technology should only remain if it gives the traveller a more useful, understandable and self-directed form of support.

This is the position I want to carry into the next stage of Studio Practice.