I love these examples of handling different behaviours in children. As designers preoccupied with a user’s experience of the world around them and the contents of it, I think that we can learn a great deal from these excerpts from the British Journal of Play Therapy Volume 5, Winter 2009.
At present, the pamphlet is not online so I have reproduced a version of them below:
Roland and the pencil
Roland, an 8 year old boy with autistic spectrum disorder is sitting at a table in the classroom with 5 other children. All of them are given a piece of paper and pencil and are asked to draw a picture of themselves playing their favourite game. All children proceed to draw elaborate pictures except for Roland who is more interested in the sound made by tapping the tip of his pencil on his paper and creating a series of dots.
An observer might argue that Roland’s behaviour could be due either to the fact that he was unable to understand the required task or that he was unable to reproduce a picture of a previous event or that he had fine motor difficulties that prevented him from drawing a picture. However, none of them apply to his incessant need to tap his pencil rather than draw a picture. Roland had a compromised sensory system which meant he would easily perseverate on sounds, enjoy repetitive actions, and was drawn to visual images that repeated themselves. The pull of his sensory preferences prevented him from engaging in the task at hand.
According to Piaget’s theory of play, Roland was engaged in a form of object play. However, the teacher quickly realised that since this was a very elementary form of play, and seeing that the tapping pencil began to distract the other children, she seized the opportunity to move Roland to a more sophisticated level of play that involved his peers.
The teacher asked all the other children to stop their drawings and to imitate Roland’s pencil tapping. Roland began to smile at the other children, produced sustained eye contact and also began laughing. He became very excited by their actions and imitation and began to address them with various tapping patterns to follow. He began calling them by name and would ask them to speed up and slow down. They drew shapes, faces, making them happy, mad and sad. The perseverative nature of the pencil tapping became a social form of game playing that included interaction, imitation, communication and reciprocity that was possible with the creative direction of the teacher.
Richard and the rollerblades
Richard, an 11 year old in a large suburban school diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder, whenever he walked around the tight aisles between the desks in his classroom would involuntarily bump into the other children, sometimes hitting or kicking them.
The initial reaction of the teacher was to ignore this behaviour, to punish it, label it as attention seeking, and curtail it. Richard became used to this cause-effect nature of his behaviour.
In time the conclusion was that Richard had poor body awareness, limited spatial awareness and was frustrated with the structural confines of the classroom. He was also experiencing sensory overload. With outside input it was decided to overhaul the layout of the classroom. Rather than remain in rows, desks were placed together to form pods creating more space. Furthermore, to assist Richard with body awareness and contact him with his surroundings, it was decided that he be placed on rollerblades. In time, Richard’s aggressive behaviour reduced considerably and on the occasion when he did try to lash out he would lose his balance and end up asking for help.
As weeks passed, Richard joined cooperative games and began to recognise the value of friendship and began building relationships with the other children. Then the introduction of a selection of the other children on rollerblades allowed Richard to observe a leadership role and help others.
In time, Richard became a functioning member of the classroom without rollerblades able to work on academic tasks both alone and in groups.
Pencil picture by Visualpanic
Rollerskate picture by Pascal \o/’s









London IA on Innovation
London IA supported by Zebra People and Lab49 is very pleased to present London IA on Innovation at The Team on 30 March.
Below are full details of the evening’s activities, how to sign up for a free ticket and the presentation deck for the evening:
The Future of Web Typography
Richard Rutter
For too long typography on the web has been stuck in the dark ages, but web type is now undergoing a renaissance. Richard will take us through recent innovations, revealing the highs and lows of font linking with its minefield of design, technology, ethics and business models. He’ll tell the story of Fontdeck, a proposed solution to these issues, and wax lyrical on the shiny future of fonts and web type.
Richard is production director at web consultancy Clearleft. User experience designer by day, he’s a web typography evangelist by night and runs the much-cited Webtypography.net. Seeking to provide a webfonts solution that works for type foundries and professional web designers alike, Richard co-founded Fontdeck in 2009.
Re-using data people have left around the web
Glenn Jones
Without much conscious thought, most of us have built identities across the web. We fill in profiles, upload photos, videos, reviews and bookmarks.
This session will explore the practical reuse of social media data and how it can create better user experience. How to exact social graphs and profiles information from open data sources like RSS and Microformats to provide a wealth information about your users.
Glenn Jones is the Creative Director and a founder of Madgex. Equally as passionate about interaction design and coding, he is currently addicted to exploring ideas of the semantic web and data portability. His latest project Ident Engine allows front-end developers to create new user experiences from a blend of identity and profile data. Glenn has given talks about data portability at many events and has written for sites such as ALA.
Innovation requires creativity
Claire Rowland
A lot of hot air and expensive business consultancy time is sold in pursuit of facilitating creativity but the creative process is still thought of as a mysterious black box, often the preserve of certain people and not others. But what’s the actual science behind it? Are some of us more creative than others, and if so, why? What can all of us do to help ourselves have more and better ideas?
Claire Rowland is a service design lead at Fjord, where she heads up UX research activities. She’s been working in UX since 1997, when a duff recruiter put a psychology/philosophy and interactive media graduate forward for a software developer role at the Press Association despite her only having 20 minutes of the required 2 years’ Unix experience. Thankfully, a curious manager decided she might be useful to have around anyway, and let her figure out how for herself. The answer quickly turned out to be IA, IXD and UX research, and since then she’s been working on web, mobile, PC and multi-channel services for companies such as Razorfish, Flow Interactive and Seren.
She has conducted hundreds of user research sessions with participants from 8 year old Lego fans to the directors of BP, and these days mainly focuses on finding ways to help her awesome creative design colleagues get inside users’ heads.
The Innovation Trap!
Andy Budd
Businesses constantly strive to gain competitive advantage through “innovation”. However, is innovation a legitimate business strategy or a misguided and often misunderstood buzz-word?
Is it really possible to innovate within a large organisation to a budget and deadline, or is corporate innovation a myth. Can innovation be planned or is it something that grows organically from a particular mind set and way of working?
The myth of innovation is seductive. However, it can often take effort and resources away from the less sexy but more productive task of finessing existing ideas. As industries strive to create new products, are we forgetting that some of the best selling and most iconic designs are actually incremental improvements to existing products?
In this session Andy will argue that innovations isn’t just a bad strategy; it’s no strategy at all. Instead of crossing our fingers and betting the farm on a sudden and uncontrollable burst of luck, we need to be sensitive to the world around us and focus on solving immediate problems in a more intelligent way.
Andy Budd is one of the founding partners at User Experience Design Consultancy, Clearleft. As an interaction design and usability specialist, Andy is a regular speaker at international conferences like The Web 2.0 Expo, SXSW and An Event Apart. Andy curates dConstruct, one of the most popular design conferences in the UK. He’s also responsible for UX London, The UK’s first dedicated Usability, Information Architecture and User Experience Design event.
Get a free ticket
Slides