One of the clearest changes I made after Sarah's feedback was to make my own position in the research more visible.
Earlier versions of the report were academically clear, but I had almost written myself out of the project. The research was visible, but the designer making decisions from that research was much less visible.
I added a clearer statement explaining that I am approaching the project as a graphic designer interested in communication and designed systems.
This feels important because the project has moved into physiology, AI, biosensing and wearable technology.
I am not claiming expertise as a clinician or biomedical engineer. My role is to consider how complex information and systems could be made understandable, accessible and controllable for the person using them.
My sister, Summer, remains an important personal reason for the project.
Conversations with her helped make me question whether opportunities for independent travel are equally accessible to adults on the autism spectrum.
I wanted to include that motivation because removing it completely would make the report less truthful about where the enquiry came from.
At the same time, Sarah's feedback helped me be clearer about the role Summer should play in the report.
Her preferences cannot be treated as representative of autistic adults generally. The broader evidence comes from the literature and the ten participants in my primary research.
Summer is more useful as a reflective lens.
For example, when thinking about a wearable, I can ask whether she would actually tolerate a hard jewellery-like object or whether something soft and fabric-based would feel more realistic for her.
That question does not prove what every autistic traveller wants, but it exposes a design issue that can then be investigated more broadly.
Personal connection can shape the questions I ask without replacing the evidence needed to answer them.
Making my position visible also helps acknowledge that qualitative research is interpreted.