During the COVID-19 pandemic, many pre-existing in-person co-design teams pivoted to online sessions. Online co-design can offer some advantages over in-person co-design. With a wider pool of children from which to recruit, you can recruit for a team that is more diverse on a number of factors including socioeconomic and geographic diversity. By not requiring children to come to a central location to do the co-design, more children may be able to participate.
- For online co-design, some teams use largely online tools for design, some retain largely physical design techniques and then photograph artifacts digitally, and some use a combination of both. Most of this online co-design was done synchronously.
- Teams use tools such as Miro or Mural Boards, and the suite of Google tools, in conjunction with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meets, to host online design sessions. Be mindful that while these tools can be used for co-design with children, they were not created for use with children, so often additional technological support may need to be given to children who are using them. Also, be sure to check the requirements for tools such as Miro, Mural Boards, and any other online tool you are using. Some require participants to set up accounts or otherwise be invited to use the tool collaboratively, which needs to be done ahead of the design session to keep things running smoothly.
- Online co-design sessions differ from in-person co-design sessions in that they can require a higher adult:child ratio than those in person. Some even suggest a ratio of 1 adult for every 2 children. This is largely due to tech support, facilitation, and note-taking needs and to capture design artifacts properly.
- Those who have led online co-design sessions also note to schedule slightly less time than in-person co-design sessions as attention can be more difficult to sustain online. Rather than 90 minute sessions, you may want to plan a 60-75 minute session, or use the extra time for additional teambuilding and socialization rather than design activities.
References
Constantin, A., Alexandru, C., Korte, J., Wilson, C., Fails, J.A., Sim, G., Read, J., and Eriksson, E. (2021). Distributing participation in design: Addressing the challenges of a global pandemic. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 28, 1 – 14.
Fails, J.A., Ratakonda, D.K., Koren, N., Elsayed-Ali, S., Bonsignore, E., and Yip, J. (2022). Pushing boundaries of co-design by going online: Lessons learned and reflections from three perspectives. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 33: 100476.
Lee, K.,J., Roldan, W., Zhu, T. Q., Saluja, H.K., Na, S., Chin, B., Zeng, Y., Lee, J. H., Yip, J. (2021). The show must go on: A conceptual model of conducting synchronous participatory design with children online. In CHI ’21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1 – 16, https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445715.
Walsh, G. (2011). Distributed Participatory Design. In CHI Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1061 – 1064.
Walsh, G., Druin, A., Guha, M.L., Bonsignore, E., Foss, E., Yip, J., Golub, E., Clegg, R., Brown,
Q., Brewer, R., Joshi, A., & Brown, R. (2012). DisCo: A Co-design tool for asynchronous distributed child and adult design partners. In IDC ‘12: Proceedings of the 11th Interaction Design and Children Conference, pp. 11 – 19.
