Assistive & Accessible AI · Capstone brief
ACC-04 · Co-design with partners
Run a structured co-design cycle with consented partners; show how their feedback changed the design.
The question
Run a structured co-design cycle with consented partners; show how their feedback changed the design.
Partners / materials
At least one consented partner (or partner group) under school ethics/media-release rules — no fake partners. Co-design cycle template: discovery → prototype → feedback → revision. Change log that attributes design changes to partner feedback without publishing private details they did not approve. Optional WAI framing for accessible interaction (https://www.w3.org/WAI/).
Expected failure modes
Interviewing once and calling it co-design. Changing nothing and claiming partnership. Publishing partner stories without consent. Using a classmate as a disability stand-in.
Done looks like
Consent record (held by the school per policy — student submits a checklist, not raw PHI); cycle notes; prototype before/after; change log linked to feedback; partner-facing summary the partner can approve; retirement note for ideas the partner rejected.
Five C's
CT: co-design vs user-as-prop. CR: feedback that actually moves the design. CO: partner confirms the change log is fair. CM: partner-facing summary. CZ: the partner.
Mentor role
Special-ed, therapies, or accessibility mentor reviews consent checklist before first session and the change log before showcase. Standing instruction: reject inventing partners; reject unchanged demos labeled co-design. School-supervised.
Rubric calibration
R1: one need, one prototype, named partners. R2: cycle documented. R3: pre-feedback baseline visible. R4: rejected ideas recorded. R5: partner summary approvable. R6: consent non-negotiable.
Two ways this goes wrong
(a) A polished demo with an empty change log. (b) A fictional “Alex, who uses a wheelchair” in the write-up.
Checkpoint suggestions
- Week 1–2: Consent path approved; partner(s) confirmed; discovery questions locked.
- Week 4–5: Prototype + first feedback; change log started; partner confirms notes are fair.
- Week 7–8: Revision; partner-facing summary; mentor review of consent and change log.
Credit lane fit
Lane A immediately. Lane B only with a real host site and division Internship wrapper — the brief alone is not HQWBL. No verified credit claim.