As I move further into Studio Practice, I need to define what I am designing before deciding how it should look. My research question remains: “How might shared airport accessibility better respond to the individual sensory needs of adults on the autism spectrum travelling independently?” The question concerns accessibility within the airport as a wider environment and service, rather than the development of a particular product.

I initially considered whether to begin with a name, slogan and visual identity. However, I recognised that doing so could give the project a finished appearance before I had sufficiently explained its purpose. I have therefore decided to establish the design problem and intended contribution first, so that later visual decisions can be justified by the research.

What the research has established

My primary research consists of written responses from ten self-declared autistic adults, considered alongside academic literature and existing airport accessibility provision. Through reflexive thematic analysis, I developed four themes concerning independence and control, unpredictability and changing support needs, environmental pressures on self-regulation, and fragmented travel systems.

The participant accounts and literature indicate that airport accessibility cannot be understood solely in terms of individual sensory sensitivity. Information, procedures, environments and the availability of assistance can all shape a traveller's experience. In particular, independence may involve choosing to use support rather than managing every part of the journey alone.

These are qualitative and contextual findings, not evidence that every autistic adult experiences airports in the same way. The sample was small and self-selected, and it has not been established that every respondent travelled through an airport alone. I need to preserve those limits when translating the research into design decisions.

Identifying the communication problem

One issue became increasingly important as I reviewed the findings: airport journey information, sensory resources and assistance can exist in different places and operate through different channels. If circumstances change, a traveller may need to locate updated instructions, understand the implications for their journey and work out how to access appropriate support.

I interpret this as a potential communication and coordination problem. It does not mean that existing airport initiatives are ineffective or that graphic design alone can remove operational and environmental barriers. Rather, it identifies a specific aspect of accessibility that I can investigate through graphic design: how information and support options might be made clearer and more connected.

My emerging design idea: connecting everything

I have chosen connecting everything as the wider ambition for the project. By this, I mean exploring a coherent communication approach that brings together journey information, environmental and sensory options, and traveller-controlled assistance.

Journey information might explain the current stage of travel, a confirmed change and the next action. Environmental information might help a person understand available spaces or routes. Assistance communication might make it easier to request support, accept an offer or decline it without losing access to ordinary journey guidance.

This direction follows from the research themes. Unpredictability makes clear changes important; environmental pressures make accessible information about options relevant; fragmented systems suggest value in better coordination; and the theme of independence makes choice and control essential. The proposed connection between these functions is therefore a reasoned design opportunity, not a demonstrated improvement in usability.

I also recognise that “connecting everything” is too broad to test as a single complete airport redesign. I will need to select a manageable situation in which to explore how these parts interact.

Why this is a graphic design project

Graphic design can contribute to the way information is structured, prioritised and communicated across different touchpoints. This includes information hierarchy, typography, language, wayfinding, visual consistency and the presentation of meaningful choices. My interest is not simply in producing attractive screens, but in understanding whether a traveller can find the correct instruction, retain an overview of the journey and see how to access assistance.

Any proposed communication system would still depend on accurate airport and airline information, available services and trained staff. Graphic design cannot itself verify a gate change, provide a quiet space or guarantee that help will arrive. These operational responsibilities must remain visible rather than being disguised by a polished interface.

Considering the form before the brand

I have not yet selected a final design format. An interface on a personal phone could make journey information accessible in one place, but it might also create dependence on a charged device and require attention at difficult moments. Shared signage, sensory maps and staff communication offer different advantages and limitations. A combined approach may prove more appropriate, but this needs comparison rather than assumption.

Earlier Week 18 sketches explored an app connected to a wrist-worn sensor and bone-conduction headphones. Those sketches helped me describe possible interactions, but did not establish that the technology was necessary or effective. The more recent research and report development has shifted the immediate priority towards connected communication and assistance that travellers choose to use. Physiological sensing remains an optional possibility only if it can address a specific need beyond manual and contextual support.

This change is important to record because it explains why I am not moving directly from those early product sketches into final branding. I am retaining what the sketches taught me about information and control while questioning whether their technological form is justified.

What I need to explore next

The next stage is to map how a traveller currently encounters information, sensory options and assistance during a specific airport situation. I can then draw a proposed connected journey and compare where information is found, how a change is understood and how support can be accessed. An unexpected gate change is one possible scenario already used in my sketches, but it remains illustrative rather than an established final focus.

This exercise should help me decide which communication touchpoints are necessary and which are additional complexity. It will also give me something specific to test. I would want to learn whether people understand the next action, can find the wider journey overview, can reach human assistance and remain in control of optional support. Any confusion or additional effort would challenge the value of my proposal.

Only after this initial system definition and comparison will I develop targeted visual references and explore naming, tone of voice and identity. Those decisions should express the system's purpose and accessibility principles, rather than determine them in advance.

Reflection on the decision

At this stage, the outcome is a clearer design ambition rather than a resolved product: I want to explore how graphic design could connect airport journey information, sensory accessibility and chosen assistance into a coherent experience for autistic adults travelling independently.

The thread I need to make visible throughout Studio Practice is the movement from research evidence, through my interpretation of the problem, to a design proposition that can be challenged and tested. The next decision is not what to call the system, but which precise situation will allow me to investigate whether connecting its parts is genuinely useful.