Having established that my design direction is to explore a more connected approach to airport accessibility, I wanted to understand how this could work in practice. My intention is to investigate how journey information, sensory accessibility and assistance could operate together, rather than being experienced as separate services.

Before developing the visual identity or deciding on a final product, I felt it was important to explore the traveller's experience more closely. This would allow me to identify where communication problems might occur and consider how graphic design could respond.

My research has highlighted unpredictability, environmental pressures, fragmented information and the importance of individual control. I therefore wanted to translate these findings into a realistic airport situation that could help guide my design development.

Choosing an Airport Scenario

I decided to begin with the example of an unexpected gate change.

This scenario connects with my primary research, particularly P01's account concerning changing gate locations and P10's desire for earlier access to gate information. It also relates to the wider airport accessibility research discussed by Edwards et al. (2025, 2026), which identifies communication, preparation and predictability among the barriers experienced by autistic travellers.

I chose this situation because it brings several aspects of my research together. A change in gate information may require a traveller to reconsider their route, process unfamiliar instructions and navigate a different part of the airport. It may also influence which environmental conditions or forms of assistance are relevant to them.

However, I recognise that an unexpected gate change will not necessarily create difficulty for every autistic traveller. I am using it as an illustrative scenario to investigate my design proposition, rather than claiming it represents a universal experience or the most significant airport accessibility problem.

Understanding the Current Experience

To begin mapping the experience, I considered a hypothetical autistic adult waiting at an airport before their flight.

The traveller has already passed through security and is waiting for boarding information. They may have prepared for the journey in advance, familiarised themselves with the airport layout or identified places where they feel comfortable waiting.

In this scenario, the departure gate changes unexpectedly from B12 to A04. This change is fictional and is being used to examine how different sources of information and support might interact.

The traveller now needs to establish whether the new information is confirmed, understand where the updated gate is located and decide how to reach it.

They might consult a flight-information display, check an airline application, look for airport signage or approach a member of staff. The options available would depend on the airport and its existing services.

The traveller may also want to understand the sensory conditions of the new route, locate an alternative waiting area or request assistance.

These resources might already exist, but they may be communicated through different systems and require separate actions to access them.

This raised an important question for my design development: could connecting relevant information and assistance make it easier for a traveller to understand their options when circumstances change?

Identifying Possible Points of Difficulty

Looking at the scenario helped me identify several points where additional effort or uncertainty might arise.

The first concerns communication of the change itself. A traveller needs to recognise that something has changed, understand which information is current and know what action is required.

The second concerns orientation. Understanding the new gate location is not necessarily the same as understanding how the change affects the wider journey. A traveller may want to retain access to the overall airport route rather than being presented with only one isolated instruction.

The third concerns environmental information. If the new route involves a busier area or different waiting conditions, the traveller may want to understand what alternatives are available.

The final consideration is assistance. Although support may be available, the individual needs to understand how to access it and retain the choice of whether to use it.

I interpret these as potential points where disconnected communication could create additional work for the traveller. They are not findings from an observed gate-change journey, and I will need to investigate whether users actually experience these difficulties in the ways I have proposed.

Exploring a More Connected Experience

Having considered the current experience, I began thinking about how these different requirements could be brought together through graphic design.

Rather than creating separate solutions for navigation, sensory accessibility and assistance, I want to explore a communication system in which these functions are connected.

For example, when a confirmed gate change occurs, the traveller could receive a clear explanation of what has changed and what they need to do next.

Alongside this information, they could access a wider journey overview, relevant environmental information and available assistance options.

The important consideration is that these elements should support one another without requiring the traveller to engage with every feature.

Someone who only wants updated directions should be able to access them immediately. Another traveller might want more detailed environmental information, while someone else may prefer to request human assistance.

This reflects one of the central findings of my research: independence should not be defined by whether a person uses support, but by the extent to which they retain choice and control.

I therefore want the proposed system to provide options rather than automatically deciding what assistance an individual needs.

Considering How the System Would Be Delivered

This exploration also raised questions about the physical and digital forms the communication might take.

My earlier sketches concentrated on a smartphone interface connected to wearable technology. However, revisiting the research has made me question whether a personal device should be the primary solution.

A smartphone could provide an individual interface for journey information and support preferences, but it might also introduce additional demands through notifications, navigation between screens or dependence on a personal device.

Shared airport signage, maps and staff communication could provide alternative ways of accessing the same information.

Rather than assuming that an application is the answer, I want to investigate whether a connected visual communication system could work across multiple airport touchpoints.

This distinction is important because my intention is to improve accessibility within the airport experience, not to transfer responsibility for accessibility entirely onto autistic travellers.

The system would also depend on reliable operational information. An unconfirmed gate change should not be presented as verified, and the design cannot promise assistance or quieter spaces that are unavailable.

These limitations need to inform the communication design from the beginning.

What This Exploration Has Helped Me Understand

Mapping the hypothetical experience has helped me clarify that my design ambition is not simply to combine several accessibility features into one interface.

The more important question is how information and assistance relate to one another as a traveller moves through the airport.

I am beginning to see the graphic design opportunity in the connections between different touchpoints: how information is organised, how changes are communicated, how options are presented and how the traveller remains in control.

This gives me a more specific direction for design development. Rather than immediately producing a logo or visual identity, I can begin investigating the structure of the proposed communication system and the ways a traveller might interact with it.

The exercise has also exposed assumptions that need testing. I do not yet know whether connecting these functions would improve understanding, whether users would find the additional options helpful or whether a simpler approach might be more appropriate.

Reflecting on My Next Design Decisions

My next step is to translate this written scenario into two visual journey maps.

The first will represent the hypothetical experience using existing types of airport communication and assistance. The second will illustrate how my proposed connected approach might operate.

Comparing these journeys should help me identify which design interventions are necessary, which might be useful and which could introduce unnecessary complexity.

I will then be able to explore different communication formats and begin developing the visual language of the system with a clearer understanding of its purpose.

This creates a more defensible progression towards branding and visual identity. Rather than selecting colours, typography or a name based primarily on appearance, I want those decisions to emerge from the communication requirements and accessibility principles established through the research.

At this stage, the connected system remains a design proposition rather than a tested solution. However, developing the airport scenario has given me a more focused way to investigate how graphic design might make journey information, environmental options and traveller-controlled assistance work together.