Disrupting hackathons: reflections on creating inclusive design events through collaboration
Peter Worthy
A * , Dennis Frost B C , Trevor Hunter A , India Anderson A , Tim Kastelle D , Janet Wiles A , Nancy A. Pachana E and Jacki Liddle F G
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Abstract
The involvement of people with diverse needs in technology design is recommended, but not yet standard practice. Hackathons are design events that aim to engage people in creating innovative technologies. They are typically not inclusive of all technology users. Older people, including those with neurological conditions, need to be involved in developing technology solutions aiming to support them. Following a research project exploring technologies to support connection of older people, a participatory design event was held. In adapting traditional approaches considering accessibility, an inclusive approach to hackathons was developed with a team including people with lived experience, technology developers, health professionals and caregivers. Accessibility adaptations included longer timeframes, multiple ways of participating (including online and in-person), asynchronous and flexible participation, supports for participation (communication, memory), and reduced technical focus. This enabled the engagement of a diverse group of event participants, including many who were unable to participate in traditional hackathons. Lessons learned in the process included the need to balance structure and flexibility with more scaffolding, skilling up team members about key issues, and including a clear end point. These learnings have been applied in other participatory research and design work to enable inclusive engagement.
Keywords: design events, hackathons, human-centred design, inclusive design, lived experience, people living with dementia, sensory and cognitive accessibility, technology design.
Introduction: considering technology, older people and inclusive design approaches
Technology and older people
Technology has the potential to provide benefits to older people, from enhancing social connections (Liddle et al. 2020) to supporting independent living and autonomy (Khosravi and Ghapanchi 2016; Berkowsky et al. 2018). Yet, ensuring adoption of these technologies by older people remains challenging (e.g. Andersen and Perrin 2017; Berkowsky et al. 2018). Although there are issues with technology familiarity and confidence (Friemel 2016), older adults are often selective, preferring technologies that are perceived as genuinely useful within the context of their everyday needs (Khosravi and Ghapanchi 2016; Peek et al. 2016). Older people living with neurological conditions may be doubly at risk of exclusion from technology, even while they may benefit from its usage. Within both research and technology development, there has been recognition of the need to directly involve older people in the design and development process (Liddle et al. 2022). Incorporating older people’s insights, preferences, and experiences throughout technology design and development ensures there is greater likelihood that the final solutions will have greater acceptance, usability and sustained engagement (Sumner et al. 2021). A number of challenges exist around how to meaningfully involve people with diverse needs in the design of technology (Sumner et al. 2021).
Design events and inclusion
Design events have been introduced to support the engagement of a range of people in solving problems, and developing technologies and other solutions (Rys et al. 2024). Hackathons are time-bound design events that aim to deliver innovative solutions to an existing problem or opportunity (Taylor and Clarke 2018; Medina Angarita and Nolte 2020; Falk et al. 2024). Traditionally, hackathons are competitive and technically focused, involving long hours over a condensed period of time (e.g. a 24 -h period), and have very structured formats for participation (Taylor and Clarke 2018; Medina Angarita and Nolte 2020). Hackathons originally emerged with a focus on software development, but are increasingly being used as a participatory method (Lodato and DiSalvo 2016; Hodge et al. 2023) for integrating a wide range of perspectives, including those of older adults (Irani 2015; Wang et al. 2024) and people living with dementia (e.g. Hodge et al. 2023). These groups may have traditionally been excluded from solution development processes (Kopeć et al. 2018; Falk et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2024) and, in particular, technological solutions (DiSalvo et al. 2014; Taylor and Clarke 2018).
Typically, the outputs from a hackathon are technology focused, such as prototypes or code bases (Medina Angarita and Nolte 2020), which then seed further development of solutions (Falk et al. 2024). Broader benefits of engagement have also been identified. By ‘[B]ringing the outside world inside the hackathon bubble’ (Taylor and Clarke 2018, p. 9) broader perspectives are applied, participants develop new skills, expand social and professional networks, and develop entrepreneurship (Irani 2015; Kopeć et al. 2018; Rys et al. 2024). When participants with lived experience are involved, hackathons can shift participants’ perspectives of an issue, supporting deeper understanding (Taylor and Clarke 2018; Hodge et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2024). These intangible benefits are particularly important in participatory and co-design contexts, where often the goal is not only to create a solution, but also to ensure that all stakeholders are heard, valued and respected (DiSalvo et al. 2014; Lodato and DiSalvo 2016; Hodge et al. 2023). This level of involvement takes steps towards ensuring the outputs from hackathons recognise and respond to users’ needs rather than designers’ perceptions of their needs (Taylor and Clarke 2018), a mindset that is unfortunately common in the fields of design and engineering (Jackson et al. 2022).
Understanding barriers, and supporting equity and inclusion within design events
The intensity from the structure of traditional hackathons (time-bound, long hours, short time period, competition etc.) is considered to be an integral part of the experience, supporting creativity and a sense of exhilaration (Kopeć et al. 2018; Rys et al. 2024). However, these conditions may also reduce participants’ capacity to engage thoughtfully in the process (Falk et al. 2024; Rys et al. 2024). Participants with less technical experience and those who are unfamiliar with hackathons may feel intimidated, leading to reduced collaboration and participation (Kopeć et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2022; Rys et al. 2024). This may further deter participants whose voices should be heard (Lodato and DiSalvo 2016; Garcia 2022). The use of the term, ‘hackathon’, may itself lead to exclusion (including self-exclusion). Within design communities, these events carry an implication of specific ways of working that are not accessible, familiar or acceptable to many people (Taylor and Clarke 2018). Fig. 1 provides an illustration of a traditional hackathon timeline.
A typical timeline of a traditional hackathon. This format often involves intensive, time-bound sessions over 1 or 2 days, with high expectations for rapid, intense work and output.
To support equity and inclusion within hackathons, a number of challenges must be addressed, which have been noted within the literature and are consistent with the experiences of our teams. In considering key barriers, these can be organised by environmental factors within the International Classification of Functioning (World Health Organization 2001; Table 1).
| Environmental factor from the ICF (World Health Organization 2001) | Hackathon challenge(s) | |
|---|---|---|
| Products and technology |
| |
| Natural environment and human-made changes to environment |
| |
| Support and relationships | ||
| Attitudes |
| |
| Services, systems and policies |
|
Hackathons are often perceived as privileging rapidly applied technical skills (Irani 2015; Kopeć et al. 2018; Paganini et al. 2021). These perceptions create a challenge in reaching a diverse audience (Lodato and DiSalvo 2016; Taylor and Clarke 2018), including older adults and people living with dementia (Irani 2015; Kopeć et al. 2018; Hodge et al. 2023). Technical language and a lack of engagement with users in setting up and promoting hackathons may create negative perceptions of what involvement might actually mean (Hodge et al. 2023). There is also a need to have a ‘value proposition’ that is meaningful to those who should be involved in the hackathon (Taylor and Clarke 2018). Prioritising a technical focus may result in the development of solutions that do not actually meet the needs of the intended end-users (Taylor and Clarke 2018). This has resulted in some negative experiences and history associated with this design approach. One critical perspective highlights that designer-focused rather than user-focused approaches have created ‘disability dongles’, which do not consider users, and therefore do not create a solution to existing problems (Jackson et al. 2022). These champion the designer and simplify or misrepresent the need, and even though well-intended, often create problematic perceptions of and attitudes towards disability. Additionally, designer-focused solutions can create quick, highly technical and expensive ‘fixes’ (that do not address actual lived difficulties) rather than systemic change that is needed for inclusion. Rapid, shallow and technically focused design engagement tends to create disability dongles (Jackson et al. 2022).
The structure and culture of hackathons, as illustrated in Fig. 1, can effectively create a barrier for participation (Taylor and Clarke 2018; Hodge et al. 2023). Condensed timeframes may restrict representation and reduce lived experience to a narrow view with solutions often not being feasible, accessible or acceptable to end-users (Jackson et al. 2022; Hodge et al. 2023). Often there are intersecting issues of representation and power arising from the approach to facilitation (DiSalvo et al. 2014; Taylor and Clarke 2018). Without thoughtful facilitation, hackathons may reproduce social inequities (Irani 2015; Lodato and DiSalvo 2016) or the ‘sidelining’ of participants with lived experience at key stages (Kopeć et al. 2018; Hodge et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2024). The nature of the hackathon activities are set by the organisers. These are often highly structured with definite milestones and deadlines that can create challenges for meaningful engagement and completion (Taylor and Clarke 2018). There is a need for more ‘fluid structures’ to allow adaptation of activities that match the evolving understanding of issues sought to be addressed, and to ensure involvement of people with lived experience in the design of hackathon and its activities (Taylor and Clarke 2018). Finally, there is a need to ensure that the hackathon environment suits the range of people who will be involved. Environments that support intense software development, or are online only, will not always suit the diverse needs of all involved (Taylor and Clarke 2018; Hodge et al. 2023).
The approach: Collab – designing technology for connection for older people
A participatory design event, ‘Collab’, was planned to help develop ideas and solutions at the completion of a research study into technology for connection for older people, including people living with dementia. This event was not a research project; however, its development was formed through a collaborative project team and built upon priorities identified within the research. The rationale, approach and reflections are provided below.
The ‘Other Ways to Connect’ project
The ‘Other Ways to Connect’ project sought to explore the role technology could play in helping older people connect with other people and places that are important to them. The project was conducted across two universities, one located in Brisbane, Australia, and the other in Exeter, UK. The project was conducted across three research stages, and a concluding design event (Fig. 2): (1) overall design of the project and continuing project guidance involving a multidisciplinary international team that included living experience experts (older people and people living with dementia), (2) a qualitative exploration of current experiences, stories and needs through semi-structured interviews, (3) completion of focus groups to identify key needs and priorities in relation to technology for connection, and (4) Collab, an international online collaborative design event that specifically designed to support the participation of people with varying needs for involvement. This multidisciplinary team guiding the project included living experience experts, people who were older and/or living with dementia, and researchers with backgrounds in occupational therapy, interaction design, psychology, computer science and business innovation. This team designed the overall study approach, then met on completion of each stage to reflect on learnings and revise the approach for the following stage. They were engaged in developing and implementing the design event approach and are authors on this manuscript. Findings from the research project are published elsewhere (e.g. Liddle et al. 2020), and this manuscript will focus on the co-created approach to an inclusive design event and the learnings from its implementation.
Collab: a co-created inclusive collaborative design event
Collab was a collaborative design event initially modelled on hackathons, adapted to support the inclusion of people with diverse needs in technology design. The aim of Collab was to collaboratively design technology for older people to enable connection to people and places. Collab incorporated a number of adaptations to reduce the intensity and address the inclusivity challenges that are typical of traditional Hackathon formats including: using non-technical language; providing information in various forms to support communication and memory; engaging project champions to support engagement in preferred formats (including face to face); and adjustments to the pacing of the event. All were aimed at broadening participation and ensuring older adults, people with scheduling constraints, and people with disability and other specific needs could still meaningfully contribute. However, it did retain elements of competition and prizes/rewards for involvement.
One aim of Collab included making ‘hackathon-type events more inclusive and accessible’. The call for expressions of interest explicitly listed the range of participants that were sought to be involved: developers, lived experience experts, health professionals and students. It also detailed a range of roles that participants could take in the event, including team members, providing expert guidance or judging. In place of pizzas (traditionally provided at hackathons), ‘participation packs’ were sent to participants, and these included stationery and refreshments, such as tea/coffee bags and chocolates.
People were invited to engage in the hackathon via local (in Australia and the UK) and online networks, including seniors groups, design/technology groups and disability groups. They were provided information about the process, and the opportunity to provide accessibility requirements and their preferred ways of working. Approximately 35 participants engaged in Collab throughout the process. They also were invited to provide feedback about the process as they engaged. No formal data collection occurred beyond the team documenting the process and reflections.
Engagement in the design event included the formation of project teams to address an identified priority area or areas (see Table 2). However, following feedback (and in contrast to traditional hackathons), membership of those teams remained flexible. Participants could join, leave or re-engage with teams as their interest, availability or expertise aligned with the evolving designs. Participants were able to identify as undertaking different roles within a team, such as a ‘team member’ or as an expert providing guidance. This fluidity was aimed at encouraging a structure of organic participation, allowing participants to contribute where and when they felt most able, rather than being bound to a single team. It was also aimed at supporting an evolving design process where ideas, feedback and directions could be formed over the more extended time period offered.
| Priority | Description | |
|---|---|---|
| Support and confidence for difficult technology | Many mainstream technologies are difficult but important to use – how do we help people to use these technologies to support connection? | |
| How to recognise and measure good connection | Feeling connection is more complicated than just a number of people you are in contact with, or an amount of time spent. We need to explore what good connections look and feel like. Is there a way of measuring it? | |
| Keeping things consistent | People identified the challenges of coping with the constantly changing technology environment. The potential of managing the difficulties through the introduction of consistent approaches to apps and websites or support to use them | |
| Second class citizens | Participating online when others are attending in real life is giving a second rate experience. This might relate to technology issues like Internet connectivity, technology performance and familiarity, and the way in which online participation is managed by others ‘in the room’. People can feel excluded – can these options be more inclusive? | |
| Getting the basics right | Feeling connected requires that the message is received accurately and promptly. It does not need to be impressive and technically fancy. Being able to hear and see well via the technology; as well as feeling the technology is reliable will help with connection. | |
| Making connections work for you | People described clear strategies about how they made sure technology worked well for them and did not bring too many negatives. Can we harness the wisdom and advice of older people to actively, and thoughtfully manage connections via technology to benefit others too? | |
| Connecting generations | At times, technology can be seen as coming between generations and making them more separate. Many people also identified that they learned to use technology specifically to keep up with younger family members and stay connected. Can we utilise technology to support new connection between the generations? | |
| The revolution | Many people identified key issues they were passionate about. The use or potential for technology to support people to organise around causes that are important to them via technology was raised. Can we make technology work for good? |
These priorities were drawn from earlier phases in the ‘Other Ways to Connect’ project.
In contrast to the typical short, intensive hackathon model, Collab took place (gradually and flexibly) over a 4-week period. This extended timeframe gave participants more time to consider problems, designs and potential solution, as well as to create a more reflective and less pressured environment. A ‘semi-structured’ schedule was created where objectives were defined and general phases were identified (Fig. 3). Informed by human-centred design (International Organization for Standardization n.d.), an approach common in the design of technology, iteration on ideas was a key component of the design phase. The information about the semi-structured schedule were communicated to participants and overall activity for each team was facilitated by ‘project champions’ (staff facilitating the design). However, participants largely worked at their own pace, rather than following a strict, pre-defined schedule. This semi-structured schedule was also aimed at supporting those who had constraints on when they could participate. The project champions had the added responsibility of creating processes that supported participation including matching the pace of phases to the needs of participants involved in the team.
Semi-structured process for the Collab design event. Collab unfolded over 4 weeks using a flexible schedule with defined objectives and phases. This structure intentionally supported iteration following human-centred design principles.
Although participation was predominantly online and asynchronous, to support participants living in different locations, Collab additionally supported synchronous involvement (a need that emerged during the event) and in-person engagement, allowing involvement in small groups or individually for more supported engagement activity. Two additional tools were used to support asynchronous participation: (1) a website where priorities and outputs were posted, and participants could add comments and ‘sign-up’ to be part of a design team, and (2) Miro, an online whiteboard where participants could collaborate on proposed designs. Assistance in the form of personalised communication and contact was also available to support participation. This supported not only participants with particular assistance needs, but also those with scheduling constraints. The intended outputs from Collab were not working technologies or prototypes, but rather artefacts that helped to describe the solution developed by each team. Primarily this consisted of a conceptual design statement, but could also be supported by other artefacts (see Fig. 4 for examples).
Reflections and learnings from Collab
The challenges of traditional hackathons for older participants and participants living with dementia include time intensity, prioritisation of technical skills, lack of inclusive facilitation and narrow representation (Lodato and DiSalvo 2016; Taylor and Clarke 2018; Wang et al. 2022). In contrast to traditional hackathons, Collab, as a participatory design event, attempted to address some of these issues primarily by extending the timeframe for the event, supporting fluid participation, providing a range of options for participation, reframing both who the event was intended to include, as well as the roles that participants could take within the event, and flexible team membership. The design of Collab, however, sought to retain some of the beneficial features of traditional hackathons, such as creating clear objectives, a collective sense of purpose, providing small rewards for participation, an atmosphere of creativity and problem-solving, a sense of competition with participants acting as judges, and prizes for winners. However, a final ‘judging’ of ‘winners’ did not occur due to pragmatic considerations and issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The extended timeframe coupled with asynchronous participation options allowed for a broader range of participants to be involved. This broadened range encompassed older adults and participants living with dementia, who might not ordinarily perceive hackathons as an event that they would be involved in. Additionally, designers included participants with disabilities, participants with time constraints (health professionals, caregivers, parents) and participants living in regional areas who could not usually attend hackathon venues. Some participants identified that this was the first design event they had been able to be involved with. However, the more fluid structure of the event also created some difficulties in maintaining a sense of focus and momentum. There was notable attrition, with some participants not completing the process (this is also common within traditional hackathons). The longer timeframes were effective in increasing accessibility for participants with a range of needs, allowing participants to develop an understanding of the ways of working within the event and make adaptations, something that is often not supported by the format of traditional hackathons (Taylor and Clarke 2018). These timeframes also provided greater opportunity to reflect on and change preconceptions (Lodato and DiSalvo 2016), allowing participants to develop a more nuanced understanding and recognition of the range of needs (Lodato and DiSalvo 2016; Kopeć et al. 2018). However, these longer timeframes required additional work to support the pacing of the activities completed, and additional strategies to support ongoing engagement. Although a level of fluidity within the longer timeframes was useful in supporting engagement, an element of additional structure (such as key touchpoints) was needed to maintain continuity and closure.
The use of some synchronous online and offline events supported relationship-building between some participants, a more dynamic exchange of ideas and feedback, and opportunities to clarify concepts and issues in real-time. These real-time events supported a sense of energy for the event and developing a common understanding of project aims. They also helped to ensure that participants felt supported and involved throughout the process, an important feature of traditional hackathons (Rys et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2024). Furthermore, it became clear that the use of online tools (websites, Miro) was not accessible to or comfortable for everyone. In this respect, providing additional support, such as buddies, alternative resources and a choice of options, is important to build participants’ confidence and competence. In retrospect, a three-pronged approach to participation (online, asynchronous and personal outreach) should have been considered in the design of Collab.
The adoption of inclusive practices for this type of collaborative online event requires careful resourcing and thoughtful scheduling (to account for things like holidays at different times of year and work cycles). It became evident that additional training and support for the project champions were necessary to ensure they were able to effectively adapt activities and facilitate engagement.
Pathways forward: creating future inclusive design research and events
Achieving genuine inclusion in technology design requires moving beyond physical and sensory accessibility (Hodge et al. 2023) to also consider pacing, cognitive load, communication styles, and the varying expertise (including living experience) and responsibilities of participants (Lodato and DiSalvo 2016; Taylor and Clarke 2018; Wang et al. 2022; Hodge et al. 2023). Cognitive accessibility remains underexplored (Gartland et al. 2022) and warrants specific attention. No single approach will suit everyone; instead, inclusive design events must be flexible, responsive and clearly supported. A combination of synchronous and asynchronous engagement can help accommodate diverse abilities and schedules, although it introduces new complexities. Although asynchronous participation can reduce time pressure and allow for reflection, it requires greater self-direction and may limit real-time interaction, as well as a sense of being involved. Similarly, providing a variety of familiar and accessible tools can support cognitive needs, but may demand more facilitation and resources. Striking a balance between structure and adaptability is an ongoing challenge, and adequate resources (including staff and training) are essential.
Table 3 contrasts traditional hackathons, our Collab approach and future models, highlighting practical steps to enhance inclusivity. By thoughtfully blending methods, supports and timelines, collaborative design events can better recognise and support varied needs, foster richer participation, and ultimately produce more meaningful outcomes for all. Learnings from Collab have been applied within an inclusive consensus project (Worthy et al. 2023) and codesign of aphasia technologies (Ramajoo et al. 2024).
| Theme | Traditional hackathons | Collab (1.0) | Future approaches | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timeframe & scheduling | Contained, intensive timeframe (e.g. 1 weekend – 48 h continuous) | Over a 4-week period, mostly asynchronous and online | Maintain longer timeframes; combine asynchronous and synchronous modes with structured checkpoints | |
| Mode(s) of participation | Typically in-person and time-bound, with a single, shared mode of participation (e.g. co-located sessions in a physical place) | Primarily online with asynchronous engagement; also supported, individualised in-person or synchronous options based on participant needs | Combine online, in-person and asynchronous options; offer a range of participation modes to accommodate cognitive, sensory and scheduling needs; participants choose and switch between mode(s) according to needs, preferences and contexts | |
| Participation structure & roles | Fixed teams with clearly defined roles; technical focus | Fluid team roles and membership; involvement as suits interest and availability | Retain fluid roles; support role clarity with skilling-up resources and onboarding | |
| Tools & accessibility | Assumed technical familiarity with digital tools; limited accommodation for access needs | Provided accessible platforms; some tools (e.g. Miro) were difficult for some participants | Offer multiple, familiar modes (e.g. Word documents, whiteboards, phone calls) for cognitive, sensory and practical (e.g. limited Internet access) accessibility. Buddies for support with learning. | |
| Facilitation & support | Minimal structured support; often peer-led or self-organised | Support through team champions, including individualised outreach and facilitation | Structured facilitation with small group sessions and breakout groups; trained facilitators for inclusive support | |
| Problem framing & challenge design | Challenges set by industry; emphasis on novelty and innovation | Challenges set by users and lived experience experts | Continue user-defined challenges; include contextual and real-world testing and evaluation to ground ideas | |
| Culture & values | Competitive, fast-paced, high-pressure culture; ‘excitement and pizza’ | Collaborative culture with reduced emphasis on competition | Foster a culture that prioritises inclusion, respect for lived experience and meaningful engagement; participant-driven values should shape the event culture including the role of competition to ensure it enhances experience and engagement rather than undermine accessibility and inclusion | |
| Outcomes & impact | Technical prototypes and demo pitches; short-term engagement | Conceptual design statements; deep engagement with user-identified issues | Pre-identified and organised pathways to application and actual use; redefine success to focus on how well outcomes address real needs and reflect lived experience; emphasise recognition of diverse contributions – particularly those from people with lived experience – over purely technical achievement or innovation; outcomes should be relevant, usable and meaningful to intended users | |
| Key challenges | Excludes groups due to time, location and technical focus; often superficial solutions | Some participants felt unsure or unsupported; tool difficulty; attrition | Requires time and funding for multi-modal support; need to engage technical/industry participants in longer timelines | |
| Recommendations for practice | Broaden participation; reduce emphasis on technical novelty; avoid ‘disability dongles’ | Combine structure with flexibility; skill-building and confidence support; resources for engagement and participation | Disseminate inclusive models; promote cognitive accessibility; encourage cultural change in design and tech communities |
Conclusions
Traditional hackathons can be made more inclusive to enable considered and collaborative approaches to tackling challenges. Conducting collaborative design research will require flexible and ongoing adaptations to ensure the engagement of key stakeholders. When such research or engagement is undertaken, it will be useful to continue to share and reflect upon approaches and outcomes.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable as no new data were generated or analysed during this study.
Declaration of funding
This study was supported by a grant from the University of Queensland and the University of Exeter under the QUEX Accelerator program – The University of Queensland and University of Exeter; United Kingdom Research and Innovation Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. JL, PW and JW were supported by funding from the Australian Research Council, Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language [Project ID: CE140100041].
References
Andersen M, Perrin A (2017) Tech adoption climbs among older adults. Pew Research Center. Available at https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/05/16170850/PI_2017.05.17_Older-Americans-Tech_FINAL.pdf [viewed 7 December 2024]
DiSalvo C, Gregg M, Lodato T (2014) Building belonging. Interactions 21(4), 58-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Falk J, Nolte A, Huppenkothen D, Weinzierl M, Gama K, Spikol D, Tollerud E, Hong NPC, Knapper I, Hayden LB (2024) The Future of Hackathon Research and Practice. IEEE Access 12, 133406-133425.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Friemel TN (2016) The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society 18(2), 313-331.
| Google Scholar |
Garcia MB (2022) Hackathons as extracurricular activities: Unraveling the motivational orientation behind student participation. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 30, 1903-1918.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gartland S, Flynn P, Carneiro MA, Holloway G, Fialho JS, Cullen J, Hamilton E, Harris A, Cullen C (2022) The State of Web Accessibility for People with Cognitive Disabilities: A Rapid Evidence Assessment. Behavioral Sciences 12(2), 26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Hodge J, Foley S, Lambton-Howard D, Booi L, Montague K, Coulter S, Kirk D, Morrissey K (2023) Exploring Participants’ Representations and Shifting Sensitivities in a Hackathon for Dementia. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30(3), 1-35.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
International Organization for Standardization (n.d.) ‘ISO 9241-210:2019(en), Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems’. Available at https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-2:v1:en [viewed 26 September 2023]
Irani L (2015) Hackathons and the Making of Entrepreneurial Citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40(5), 799-824.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Khosravi P, Ghapanchi AH (2016) Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Medical Informatics 85(1), 17-26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Kopeć W, Balcerzak B, Nielek R, Kowalik G, Wierzbicki A, Casati F (2018) Older Adults and Hackathons: A Qualitative Study. Empirical Software Engineering 23, 1895-1930.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Liddle J, Stuart A, Worthy P, Levine M, Kastelle T, Wiles J, Pachana NA, Clare L (2020) “Building the Threads of Connection that We Already Have”: The Nature of Connections via Technology for Older People. Clinical Gerontologist 44, 406-417.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Liddle J, Worthy P, Frost D, Taylor E, Taylor D (2022) Partnering with people living with dementia and care partners in technology research and design: Reflections and recommendations. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 69(6), 723-741.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Lodato TJ, DiSalvo C (2016) Issue-oriented hackathons as material participation. New Media & Society 18(4), 539-557.
| Google Scholar |
Medina Angarita MA, Nolte A (2020) What Do We Know About Hackathon Outcomes and How to Support Them? – A Systematic Literature Review. In ‘Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing’. (Eds A Nolte, C Alvarez, R Hishiyama, I-A Chounta, MJ Rodríguez-Triana, T Inoue pp. 50–64. (Springer International Publishing: Cham)
Peek STM, Luijkx K, Rijnaard MD, Nieboer ME, van der Voort CS, Aarts S, van Hoof J, Vrijhoef HJM, Wouters E (2016) Older Adults’ Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place. Gerontology 62(2), 226-237.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Rys M, Górska AM, Korzynski h. P (2024) Navigating the hackathon: Exploring participant experience, confidence and anxiety. European Journal of Education 59(3), e12656.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sumner J, Chong LS, Bundele A, Wei Lim Y (2021) Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review. The Gerontologist 61(7), e395-e409.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Wang G, Kasraian D, Valk C, Kersten A, Hurst W, Lu Y, Maranus S, Jambroes M, van Wesemael P (2022) An interdisciplinary hackathon with older adults on community-based active ageing: Outcomes and lessons learned. Available at SSRN 4356933
Wang G, Kasraian D, Valk C, Kersten A, Hurst W, Lu Y, Maranus S, Jambroes M, Van Wesemael P (2024) Interdisciplinary hackathons for community-based co-design with older adults: a case study. CoDesign 21(1), 136-151.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
