Research on Design Methods for Interactive Spaces in Schools for Children with Intellectual Disabilities Considering User Needs

Abstract

To scientifically enhance user perception in decision-making for designing interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, we propose an innovative design model that integrates the Kano model, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Axiomatic Design (AD) theories based on user needs. Initially, multi-method research was used to gather the original user requirements which were then refined through data cleaning to establish the initial user needs. The Kano model was then employed to categorize these initial user needs. AHP was then used to construct a hierarchical analysis model for the interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, creating a judgment matrix to accurately calculate demand weight values at each level. Subsequently, AHP was used to select the most important demand items. The independence axiom of AD theory was used to achieve a “Z”-shaped mapping between the functional requirements (FRs) and design parameters (DPs) for the interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities. This mapping was analyzed using a matrix approach to assess the design rationality and optimize solutions, thereby transforming user needs into design parameters. Finally, the design parameters were used to create interactive spaces through computer-aided design, and the resulting design plans were evaluated. Experimental results indicate that this design scheme effectively translates subjective concepts into specific design parameters through a qualitative and quantitative approach. This significantly enhances the user needs of interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities and provides a scientific basis for the architectural design of these schools.

1. Introduction

The development of special education is a critical indicator of societal and civilizational progress [1,2]. In China, the Communist Party and the government highly prioritize the advancement of special education [3,4]. In 2021, the State Council of China emphasized the development and enhancement of special education during the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021–2025), stating that “special education is still a weak link in the field of education” and elevated its significance to the strategic level of building a high-quality national education system [5]. Additionally, the “Outline of Long-Term Goals for 2035” proposed by China specifically emphasizes the importance of improving the quality of special education [6]. Special education schools in China are categorized into schools for the visually impaired, schools for the deaf and mute, and schools for children with intellectual disabilities (also known as schools for developmental learning), as shown in Figure 1. According to data from the Ministry of Education of China [7], the number of students in schools for children with intellectual disabilities during the compulsory education phase far exceeds that in other types of special education schools and shows a significant annual increase from 2012 to 2022, as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, schools for children with intellectual disabilities should receive more attention.

Despite government efforts, the current special education system still faces significant challenges, such as inadequate facilities, insufficiently trained staff, and a lack of tailored educational programs. Addressing these issues is crucial for improving the education quality and overall development of children with intellectual disabilities. In recent years, numerous researchers have investigated architectural space design methods for schools for children with intellectual disabilities. Zhu et al. [8,9] examined the characteristics of the space users’ disabilities to review and adapt outdoor environment design applications from special education schools in developed countries, and proposed a diversified design strategy for these schools’ outdoor environments, including site composition, scale, organization, and specific details. Ge et al. [10] identified issues in the conventional teaching spaces of these schools through field research, summarized the functional requirements of these educational spaces, and proposed design methods for the functional layout, spatial scale, and combination patterns of typical classrooms. Deng et al. [11] utilized the physiological and psychological traits of children with disabilities in these schools as a framework, employing architectural methodologies to design outdoor rehabilitation sites and service strategies. Zhang et al. [12] analyzed the implementation of "medical-educational integration" designs in schools from educationally advanced regions and conducted researched on students with intellectual disabilities; they proposed an architectural space construction model for these schools that integrates both medical and educational requirements. Chen et al. [13] analyzed the disability characteristics of students with intellectual disabilities and reviewed the architectural space design applications in schools for these students both in China and internationally; they proposed a specialized design strategy for special education spaces that accommodates the various disability characteristics of these students. Moreover, many researchers have examined the design of architectural spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities from diverse viewpoints [14,15,16,17].

Although most research adheres to human-centered design principles and increasingly emphasizes user needs, the demand analysis lacks adequate theoretical support, and the design process shows some ambiguity, resulting in interactive spaces that do not fully meet user needs. Therefore, to accurately identify user needs for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, this article focuses on these spaces and proposes a method for designing with the consideration of user needs by integrating the Kano model, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Axiomatic Design (AD) theory, the interactive spaces in these schools can be optimized. The Kano model classifies user needs to assess the importance of various requirements. AHP constructs a hierarchical analysis model for the interactive spaces, establishing a judgment matrix to accurately calculate weight values between levels. User needs with higher weights calculated by AHP are prioritized. Finally, the AD theory’s independence axiom applies a “Z”-shaped mapping between the functional requirements (FRs) and design parameters (DPs) to optimize the design scheme. This approach aims to optimize the structure of interactive spaces to meet the psychological and physiological needs of students; it ensures that user needs authentically guide spatial structure, layout, optimization, and design process. This research contributes new values and insights to the field of special education architecture by achieving these objectives. It establishes a scientific foundation for designing educational spaces that better accommodate the specific needs of children with intellectual disabilities, aiming to enhance their learning experiences and overall development. The study addresses current gaps in the design process and theoretical support, offering practical solutions to enhance the quality and functionality of interactive spaces in special education schools.

2. State of Research: Overview of Considering User Needs Spatial Design Methods

Considering user needs design represents a new paradigm that prioritizes fulfilling user needs, especially in spatial design [18]. This approach emphasizes using user needs as the primary driving force in the design process ensuring that the design solutions are not only esthetically pleasing but also practical and user-friendly. In contemporary architectural space design practice, user needs have become a core priority, transforming the user-centered design philosophy into a key driver of design innovation. Therefore, the design method that considers user needs can effectively enhances the functionality of interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, creating a more user-friendly and communicative environment for these students.

Common methodologies in spatial design research focusing on user needs include the Kano model [19], Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [20], technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) [21], and Axiomatic Design (AD) theory [22]. The Kano model identifies and categorizes user needs, assisting designers and developers in understanding crucial features for enhancing user satisfaction; this optimization helps to tailor design features and services to diverse user needs. For example, Liu et al. [23] applied the Kano model in the design of community eldercare facilities, while Song et al. [24] applied it in the design of independent living shower spaces for the elderly; these applications aimed to precisely identify user needs and configure functional spaces accordingly. AHP is a method commonly used in decision analysis that quantifies issues. Its main steps involve a hierarchical structure model, calculating weights for various indicators, and conducting consistency checks; Chi et al. [25] applied AHP to determine the comprehensive weights of space design elements for youth apartments, based on the residential preferences of urban young people, providing significant support for the design process. AD theory is a structured method for mapping user needs to design parameters; Zhang et al. [26] applied AD theory to establish a mapping relationship between patient needs and hospital space, aiming to identify the optimal design solution. Overall, the Kano model, AHP, and AD theory have been extensively utilized and matured in spatial design applications. Applying these methodologies to research on interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities can yield more advanced and scientific design insights. However, despite establishing a robust foundation, these studies often lack specific details on achieved objectives and precise design recommendations. Therefore, our objective is to address this gap by elaborating on the objectives and design recommendations derived from these methodologies in the following section.

3. Proposed Methods

3.1. Construction of Spatial Design Methods Integrating Kano/AHP/AD

In the integration of spatial design methods that consider user needs, the Kano model accurately divides the relationship between user demand and satisfaction in a specific space but does not intuitively reveal the weight and ranking of these demands [27]. Precisely determining the weight of each requirement is crucial for developing effective spatial design solutions, as these weights directly influence the design’s focus and effectiveness. When applying the Kano model, weight calculation typically involves methods like the Delphi technique, Better–Worse index analysis, and Entropy method. However, these methods are hindered by their high subjectivity, lack of comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis, the singular nature of the evaluation process, and complex calculations [28]. In contrast, the AHP method can swiftly and accurately solve the weights of various requirements in complex multi-criteria decision-making problems, providing greater objectivity and scientific rigor. Applying AHP to calculate the weights of user needs identified by the Kano model can overcome the limitations of traditional weight calculations; this ensures the precision of user need weights in the Kano model and the objectivity of the AHP in constructing hierarchical models of user needs. After determining user needs and their respective weights, neither the Kano model nor the AHP has proposed specific design principles and standards for converting these needs into specific design parameters. Conversely, AD theory provides a method for mapping user needs to specific design parameters in spatial design, facilitating the generation and implementation of spatial design solutions [26].

As previously discussed, integrating the Kano model, AHP, and AD theory in constructing spatial design models is both feasible and practical. This approach scientifically segments user needs, accurately calculates requirement weights, and effectively formulates design parameters [29]. Therefore, applying user need considerations in space design research to the design practice of communication space in special education schools is reasonable, as shown in Figure 3. First, classify user requirements based on the Kano model. Conduct a survey to collect user needs, then create and distribute a Kano questionnaire. Statistically analyze the results using the Kano evaluation form to further classify user attributes. The second step involves weight analysis of user needs using the AHP method. Classify user needs based on the Kano model, introduce the AHP method to construct a hierarchical analysis model, establish a judgment matrix, calculate the weights of user needs at different levels, and perform a consistency check. If the check passes, select the user needs with the highest weight in each attribute for further research. If the check fails, return and adjust the model accordingly. Finally, based on the design parameter analysis of AD theory, select the user requirements with the highest weights calculated by AHP as customer attributes (CAs). Apply the Axiomatic Design principles of AD theory to map these requirements, achieving a “Z”-shaped mapping between the FRs and the DPs. This process ensures that key user requirements are translated into specific design parameters, making the design solution both practical and efficient.

3.2. Application of the Kano Model

To systematically gather and categorize user requirements for interactive spaces, we employed the Kano model, a methodological tool known for effectively classifying user preferences based on their impact on satisfaction. This model was chosen for its ability to distinguish between essential and enhancing elements of user experience, crucial for designing spaces for children with intellectual disabilities.

Segmenting users in space design using the Kano model involves several steps. First, user needs are explored through in-depth research, including interviews, focus groups, and observational studies, to gather comprehensive information on user interactions and expectations. Next, a Kano questionnaire is designed, including functional and dysfunctional questions related to the interactive space, as shown in

Table 1. KANO questionnaire.

Questions	Functional: Offering Feature	Dysfunctional: Not Offering Feature
Like	5	5
Must Be	4	4
Neutral	3	3
Live With	2	2
Dislike	1	1

. This questionnaire is distributed to stakeholders such as educators, parents, and therapists to extensively collect user needs from both positive and negative perspectives. Finally, responses are analyzed using statistical software to categorize user attributes into five groups based on their impact on user satisfaction. The results are then tabulated, as shown in

Table 2. KANO evaluation chart.

Functional/Dysfunctional	Like	Must Be	Neutral	Live With	Dislike
Like	Q	A	A	A	O
Must Be	R	I	I	I	M
Neutral	R	I	I	I	M
Live With	R	I	I	I	M
Dislike	R	R	R	R	Q

Q = Questionable, A = Attractive, O = One-dimensional, R = Reverse, I = Indifferent, M = Must-Be.

, which provides a detailed matrix analysis of how each categorical need affects user satisfaction based on its presence or absence.

The Kano model identifies the following categories of user needs:

• Must-Be (M): fundamental requirements that, if absent, result in dissatisfaction.
• One-Dimensional (O): features that increase satisfaction when present and cause dissatisfaction when absent.
• Attractive (A): elements that greatly increase satisfaction if included but do not cause dissatisfaction when omitted.
• Indifferent (I): aspects that do not affect satisfaction whether they are present or absent.
• Reverse (R): attributes that could cause dissatisfaction if included in the design.

Each feature identified in the questionnaire is categorized and analyzed to ensure that the final design parameters align closely with the nuanced needs of the users. Table 1 presents the results of the Kano questionnaire, categorizing each feature based on user responses, while Table 2 provides a matrix format visualization that details how each need’s presence or absence affects overall user satisfaction.

3.3. Utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Based on the classification results of user need attributes according to the Kano model, the AHP was utilized to build a hierarchical analysis model for spatial design. AHP facilitates structuring complex decision-making processes by quantifying qualitative data, thereby providing a systematic approach to prioritizing user requirements. The specific application process should first involve constructing a hierarchical model based on the classification of user requirements in the Kano model, following the AHP principle with layers including a goal layer, a criterion layer, and a sub-criterion layer, illustrated in Figure 4. Next, a judgment matrix is constructed, and the geometric mean method is applied to calculate the weight of each requirement, clarifying their importance ranking. Finally, critical user requirements are identified based on their weight rankings, prioritizing those essential for initial implementation in spatial design, thus forming the foundation for subsequent design plans.

3.4. Implementation of Axiomatic Design (AD)

In spatial design practice, after identifying user needs with higher weight values within each attribute category calculated by the AHP model, a “Z” mapping between the functional and design domain is implemented using AD theory, depicted in Figure 5. This approach integrates AD theory with specific spatial design user needs to perform a comprehensive analysis, translating critical user need CAs into FRs. It also adheres to the independence and information axioms of AD theory, thereby converting FRs into DPs in the design domain [29].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Practical Design Methods for Interactive Spaces in Schools for Children with Intellectual Disabilities Considering User Needs

According to the latest data from the Ministry of Education of China, the enrollment of students with intellectual disabilities in schools not only surpasses other disability categories significantly but also shows a clear upward trend. This increase highlights the urgent need for interactive spaces designed specifically to meet their complex and evolving needs. Interactive spaces are crucial in schools for children with intellectual disabilities because they are designed to facilitate communication and interaction among students. These spaces are strategically designed to enhance social interactions, emotional exchanges, and gatherings, which are essential to compensate for the disabilities of these students. By offering opportunities for meaningful engagement and interaction, these environments play a crucial role in supporting the psychosocial development of students, effectively helping to alleviate the challenges posed by their disabilities.

Interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities are crucial for enhancing students’ social skills, emotional development, and adaptability. These spaces also demonstrate a commitment to educational equity and the advancement of special education in China. These spaces involve complex architectural design and functional requirements, often comparable in intricacy to the overall architectural planning of educational institutions. In practice, it is crucial to first analyze the organizational structure and functional zoning based on relevant theories to define the essential attributes of these interactive spaces. This approach ensures that the designs effectively meet the psycho-physical development needs of the students. For instance, the redesign of the Keynes–Ford School for special needs in Australia [30] focused on protection and challenge as fundamental principles. The central area of the school was covered with a large structure that interconnected various spaces to ensure the safety (protection) of disabled students in outdoor social areas. Meanwhile, the challenge was tackled by creating engaging outdoor spaces that utilized the natural topography, such as balance beams and trampolines, to promote exploration and foster courage. Chen [31] has customized indoor and outdoor school spaces to meet the behavioral and psychological needs of disabled students. The design emphasizes sensory stimulation, cognitive development, self-expression, and creativity and provides a suitable learning environments tailored to the specific conditions of the Nansha District Special Education School. Wu [32] has emphasized the unique requirements of indoor and outdoor interactive spaces at the Shenyang Sujiatun District Special Education School, aiming to balance safety, engagement, and accessibility. The analysis comprehensively considers the physiological and psychological aspects of the students, as well as the school environment, land area, and educational methodologies. Thus, interactive spaces should promote safety, accessibility, multifunctionality, social interaction, exploration, psychological comfort, and environmental sustainability. This paper highlights significant issues in current design practices. Many schools lack a comprehensive consideration of user needs, leading to inadequately designed social spaces that affect students’ well-being and campus life quality. To address these challenges, this study integrates the Kano model, AHP, and AD spatial design methods to analyze user needs, segmenting attributes, calculating weights, and converting them into design parameters. This approach enhances the quality of interactive spaces and better meets the learning and living needs of the students.

4.2. Using the Kano Model to Identify and Categorize User Needs in Schools for Children with Intellectual Disabilities

4.2.1. Gathering User Requirements

To understand user needs for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, extensive field surveys, interviews, and questionnaires were conducted with 174 students and staff across eight schools, including special education departments. These methods aimed to capture a wide range of insights into the daily experiences and specific challenges faced by these individuals. The research highlighted that these interactive spaces often have overly simplistic designs with limited functional diversity, which severely restricts students’ engagement in interactive activities. These limitations undermine the effectiveness of these spaces in facilitating meaningful interactions and contravene the goal of creating environments that cater to the unique needs of students with intellectual disabilities. Furthermore, comparative studies with renowned institutions both domestically and internationally, such as Hangzhou’s Yang Lingzi School, Japan’s Doryase Nursing School in Gunma Prefecture, and the Hiratsuka School for the Deaf, revealed substantial differences in service objectives and the specific disability profiles of students resulted in significant disparities in space planning and equipment, directly affecting students’ learning experiences and satisfaction in school.

Following the organization of survey data, 28 initial requirements for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities were identified. To refine these requirements into high-quality user needs, we developed a detailed questionnaire. The questionnaire utilized a five-point Likert scale and was distributed to 174 students in these schools. We received 152 valid responses. Analysis of the survey data led to the identification of 20 initial user needs, as depicted in

Table 3. Initial requirements for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities.

ID	User Requirement
1	Mobility of equipment and facilities
2	Installation of time reminder devices
3	Design compatible with intellectual disability features
4	Safety and reliability of equipment and materials
5	Installation of a one-touch emergency call system
6	Anti-slip flooring
7	Bright and vibrant interior colors
8	Clear internal traffic flow
9	Provision of resting areas
10	Setup of teacher–student interactive areas
11	Creation of an intelligent display area
12	Setup of scenario learning area
13	Establishment of student interaction game area
14	Development of immersive experience zones
15	Lighting ambiance in the space
16	Provision of emergency medical kits and AEDs
17	Ease of cleaning for equipment and facilities
18	Creation of a creative space (DIY)
19	Provision of recreational and leisure facilities
20	Accessible design of equipment and facilities

.

The specific user needs for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, listed in Table 3, were organized and numbered for ease of reference by researchers. These needs were identified through extensive consultations and field surveys with 174 special education students, school staff, and caregivers closely involved with children having intellectual disabilities. This approach ensured that the identified needs were comprehensive and accurately represented the daily challenges and requirements of these students.

4.2.2. Categorization of User Need Attributes

Utilizing the Kano model, along with interviews, questionnaires, observations, and field studies, we evaluated the current designs of interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities. Our analysis identified significant shortcomings in meeting the diverse needs of these students, particularly in storytelling, inclusiveness, safety, and social interaction support. These deficiencies are primarily due to a misalignment between designers’ perceptions of user needs and the actual satisfaction levels of users. To address these deficiencies, we extensively applied the Kano model to reassess and redefine student needs, aiming to bridge the gap between the current designs and the actual student requirements. The process consisted of two key steps. The first step was implementing the Kano survey. A comprehensive Kano questionnaire, based on previously identified user needs, was prepared and distributed, resulting in 263 valid responses out of 286 distributed questionnaires. The data aimed to detail the students’ preferences and frustrations. The second step involved classifying and analyzing the needs. Using the collected data, a Kano assessment form analyzed the types of needs in detail, as shown in

Table 4. Analysis of Kano model results for user needs in interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities.

User Requirement	I	Q	A	M	R	O	User Requirement Attributes
Mobility of equipment and facilities	115	10	41	36	12	49	Indifferent Attribute (I)
Clear internal traffic flow	117	12	39	44	11	40
Bright and vibrant interior colors	35	9	38	139	8	34	Must-Be Attribute (M)
Campus emergency medical facilities	37	7	32	141	9	37
Accessible design of equipment and facilities	32	8	36	139	9	39
Design compatible with intellectual disability features	29	8	37	140	10	39
Ease of cleaning for equipment and facilities	45	7	36	134	6	35
Time reminder device (Voice)	28	8	54	43	11	119	One-Dimensional Attribute (O)
Safety and reliability of equipment materials	35	13	44	41	9	121
One-touch emergency call system	35	8	47	40	7	126
Anti-slip flooring	31	7	44	39	12	130
Resting areas provided	30	11	43	41	5	133
Student interaction game area	41	9	41	36	11	125
Recreational and leisure facilities	32	9	46	40	12	124
Teacher–Student interactive areas	45	12	131	31	8	36	Attractive Attribute (A)
Intelligent display area	39	10	140	29	8	37
Scenario learning area	36	7	139	29	13	39
Immersive experience setup	39	11	130	34	9	40
Creative space (DIY)	41	11	132	30	7	42

. This classification determined which features are critical to user satisfaction and which have a lesser impact.

In Table 4, the Kano model results analysis table for user needs in interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities is based on the initial user needs. It includes the design and distribution of Kano questionnaires and the categorization of user needs attributes using the Kano evaluation table. According to Table 4, features such as movable equipment and clearly defined circulation paths are considered Indifferent Attributes (I); their presence or absence does not impact user satisfaction, so they are not included in the design process. Attributes such as vibrant and bright color schemes, on-campus emergency medical facilities, accessibility in equipment and facility design, designs for students with intellectual disabilities, and ease of cleaning are Must-be Attributes (M). These attributes are essential for designing interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities. Their absence significantly lowers user satisfaction, although enhancing them does not further increase satisfaction. Therefore, meeting these needs in the design is necessary, but optimization is not required. Features such as time-reminder systems (voice), safe materials for equipment and facilities, emergency call systems, anti-slip flooring, rest areas, interactive game zones, and leisure facilities are One-Dimensional attributes (O). The more these attributes are perfected in the design, the higher the user satisfaction, therefore, they should be prioritized to enhance user satisfaction. Additionally, including Attractive Attributes (A), unexpected features that add value to the design, can significantly increase user satisfaction, even though their absence does not detract from it. Therefore, when designing interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, consider incorporating features such as interactive zones for teachers and students, intelligent display areas, scenario-based learning zones, immersive experience areas, and creative spaces (DIY). By integrating the Kano model into our analytical framework, we have significantly enhanced the alignment of design interventions with student expectations. This ensures that these environments meet functional requirements and enrich students’ educational and social experiences.

4.3. User Need Analysis for Interactive Spaces in Schools for Children with Intellectual Disabilities Using AHP

4.3.1. Constructing an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for Interactive Spaces

While the Kano model categorizes user needs for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, it lacks the capability to intuitively assess the relative importance or ranking of these needs. To address this limitation and accurately prioritize user requirements, we integrate the Kano model with the AHP. This combination facilitates calculating the weighted importance for each user need, ensuring that essential design priorities are systematically identified and addressed first in developing interactive spaces. To implement this approach, user need attributes identified through the Kano model are input into the AHP framework to construct a detailed hierarchical analysis. This structure quantifies the importance of each need and helps visualize their relative significance in the overall design strategy. The resulting hierarchical model, as illustrated in Figure 6, serves as a critical tool in guiding design decisions, ensuring that the interactive spaces are tailored to effectively meet the specific requirements of students with intellectual disabilities.

4.3.2. Construction of Judgment Matrix and Calculating User Need Weights for Interactive Spaces

A judgment matrix was constructed following the hierarchical analysis model for designing interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities. To ensure the scientific validity and accuracy of the user need weight calculations, 30 experts in architectural space design were consulted. The panel consisted of eight architectural space design professors, five space designers, ten environmental design graduate students, three public interaction space researchers, and four special education experts. Needs levels were compared pairwise using a one to nine rating scale, with average scores determining the weights. The geometric mean method was then used to calculate the user demand weight for the social space in the special education school. The specific calculation process is as follows [33,34,35]:

• Calculate the product of the values at each level in the judgment matrix to determine the cumulative product of each demand indicator:

  $$M_i=\prod _{j=1}^m{b}_{ij}(i=1,2,\dots ,3)$$

  (1)

  where $b_{ij}$ represents the requirement indicator located at the ith row and jth column of the judgment matrix, while m represents the number of requirement indicators at each level of the judgment matrix.
• Calculate the geometric mean of each layer of the judgment matrix:

  $$a_i=\sqrt[m]{M_i}(i=1,2,\dots ,3)$$

  (2)
• The obtained geometric mean is converted into relative weights:

  $$W_i={\displaystyle \frac{a_i}{{\sum }_{i=1}^m{a}_i}}$$

  (3)
• Calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix:

  $${\lambda }_{max}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^n{\displaystyle \frac{B_{W_i}}{W_i}}$$

  (4)

  where $B_{W_i}$ represents the ith component of vector $B_W$, and n denotes the order of the matrix.
• Check the consistency of weight values:

  $$CI={\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}}$$

  (5)

  $$CR={\displaystyle \frac{CI}{RI}}$$

  (6)

  where n represents the order of the judgment matrix, while $RI$ stands for the Random Index, and $CR$ is the Consistency Ratio. If $CR\le 0.1$, it indicates that the consistency test is passed; if $CR>0.1$, the test is not passed, suggesting that there are logical errors in the judgment matrix that require adjustments and recalculation.

The calculation results are shown in

Table 5. Judgment matrix and weight values for the criteria layer.

X	M	O	A	Weight Values
M	1	4	5	0.6651
O	1/4	1	3	0.2311
A	1/5	1/3	1	0.1039

,

Table 6. Judgment matrix and weight values for Must-Be Attribute (M).

M	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	Weight Values
M1	1	2	2	2	3	0.3254
M2	$1/2$	1	2	2	4	0.2548
M3	$1/2$	$1/2$	1	$1/2$	4	0.1510
M4	$1/2$	$1/2$	2	1	5	0.2079
M5	$1/3$	$1/4$	$1/4$	$1/5$	1	0.0609

,

Table 7. Judgment matrix and weight values for One-Dimensional Attribute (O).

O	O1	O2	O3	O4	O5	O6	O7	Weight Values
O1	1	$1/2$	$3/2$	$3/2$	1	$3/2$	1	0.1437
O2	2	1	1	2	5	5	5	0.2705
O3	$2/3$	1	1	2	4	4	5	0.2264
O4	$2/3$	$1/2$	$1/2$	1	4	4	4	0.1645
O5	1	$1/5$	$1/4$	$1/4$	1	1	1	0.0649
O6	$2/3$	$1/5$	$1/4$	$1/4$	1	1	3	0.0724
O7	1	$1/5$	$1/5$	$1/4$	1	$1/3$	1	0.0577

and

Table 8. Judgment matrix and weight values for Attractive Attribute (A).

A	A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	Weight Values
A1	1	2	1	2	2	0.2761
A2	1/2	1	1	2	2	0.2075
A3	1	1	1	3	3	0.2782
A4	1/2	1/2	1/3	1	3	0.1453
A5	1/2	1/2	1/3	1/3	1	0.0929

.

Based on the hierarchical analysis model developed for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, experts and researchers were invited to conduct pairwise comparisons across various levels, including standard layer and sub-standard layers of essential, desired, and attractive requirements. Utilizing the numerical ratings, judgment matrices were constructed to calculate the weights between each level. The calculation results indicate that, within the standard layer, priorities are M > O > A. In the Must-Be Attribute (M) category, the requirements are ranked as M1 > M2 > M4 > M3 > M5 in terms of importance. In the One-Dimensional Attribute (O) category, requirements are ranked as O2 > O3 > O4 > O1 > O6 > O5 > O7, and in the Attractive Attribute (A) category, they are ranked as A3 > A1 > A2 > A4 > A5. According to the requirements of the AHP, it is crucial to satisfy the most highly weighted need attributes to effectively meet the needs of students using the interactive spaces in these schools. Finally, to ensure consistency in evaluators’ thought processes when completing the judgment matrix, a consistency test was conducted on the calculated results. The outcomes of this experiment indicate that all Consistency Ratios (CR) values are below 0.1, as indicated in

Table 9. Consistency test results.

Project	X	M	O	A
${\lambda }_{\max }$	$3.087$	$5.282$	$7.670$	$5.238$
CI	$0.043$	$0.071$	$0.112$	$0.059$
RI	$0.520$	$1.120$	$1.360$	$1.120$
CR	$0.084$	$0.063$	$0.082$	$0.053$

.

Based on the analysis of the Kano model and the calculation of user demand weights for social spaces in special education schools, it is evident that the design process must thoroughly address essential attributes and prioritize attributes with higher weights related to attractiveness and expectation. Meeting these needs successfully can significantly enhance user satisfaction in the interactive spaces of schools for children with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, the design of these interactive spaces must address critical user requirements, including the equipment and facility material safety, emergency call system implementation, creation of interactive areas for teachers and students, establishment of intelligent display areas, and configuration of scenario-based learning zones.

4.4. Mapping Design Parameters for Interactive Spaces in Schools for Children with Intellectual Disabilities

AD theory is an advanced design methodology that directly maps user needs, identified as CAs, to DPs in the design process. This mapping is achieved systematically through a “Z” configuration between CAs and the resulting DPs, influencing spatial design decisions classified as FRs. The application of a judgment matrix in this process facilitates scientific and precise design formulations, ensuring that each design parameter directly corresponds to identified user needs. When developing interactive spaces for schools for children with intellectual disabilities, it is crucial to align these user needs with specific spatial structures and layout elements. AD theory meticulously addresses these considerations and provides detailed parameters for planning these environments, ensuring that each design step is rigorously based on a clear linkage between CAs, FRs, and DPs. This study integrates AD principles with architectural space design characteristics using the Kano model and the AHP to methodically transform CAs into FRs. This transformation is explicitly outlined, illustrating how specific user needs are addressed through targeted design modifications, as shown in

Table 10. Comparison of key customer attributes and functional requirements in interactive spaces of schools for children with intellectual disabilities.

Customer Attributes (CAs)	Functional Requirements (FRs)
Bright and vibrant interior colors CA1	Enhance the liveliness and comfort of the environment FR1
Campus emergency medical facilities CA2	Improve capability to handle emergencies FR2
Accessible design of equipment and facilities CA3	Ensure convenience and safety in use FR3
Design compatible with intellectual disability features CA4	Meet specific needs of users FR4
Ease of cleaning for equipment and facilities CA5	Ensure specific cleaning requirements of equipment FR5
Safety and reliability of equipment materials CA6	Ensure durability and safety of materials FR6
One-touch emergency call system CA7	Incorporate one-touch emergency call FR7
Anti-slip flooring CA8	Ensure safety and reliability of flooring FR8
Teacher–student interactive area CA9	Facilitate teacher–student interactive functions FR9
Intelligent display area CA10	Incorporate modern technological innovations in design FR10
Scenario learning area CA11	Provide a conducive scenario learning atmosphere FR11

.

Table 10 demonstrates how individual customer needs, identified as CAs, are systematically transformed into FRs and then into DPs. This table serves as a critical visual tool that illustrates the step-by-step process from identifying user needs to implementing practical design solutions, ensuring that all design decisions are grounded in AD theory. After identifying FRs, an in-depth analysis focused on spatial structure, layout, construction materials, and techniques tailored to the unique needs of intellectually disabled students. This phase rigorously applied the information axiom to assess and validate the FRs, directly guiding the development of precise DPs, as shown in

Table 11. Comparison of functional requirements and design parameters in interactive spaces of schools for children with intellectual disabilities.

Functional Requirements (FRs)	Design Parameters (DPs)
Enhance the liveliness and comfort of the environment FR1	Lighting design, environmental design parameters DP1
Improve capability to handle emergencies FR2	Emergency equipment configuration parameters DP2
Ensure convenience and safety in use FR3	Accessible passage design parameters DP3
Meet specific needs of users FR4	Special needs facility configuration parameters DP4
Ensure specific cleaning requirements of equipment FR5	Cleaning performance design parameters DP5
Ensure durability and safety of materials FR6	Building material selection parameters DP6
Integrate one-touch autonomous emergency call functionality FR7	Emergency call system design parameters DP7
Ensure safety and reliability of flooring FR8	Anti-slip material selection parameters DP8
Facilitate interactive functions between teachers and students FR9	Interactive facilities design parameters DP9
Integrate modern technological innovations in design space FR10	Technological innovation application parameters DP10
Provide a conducive scenario learning atmosphere FR11	Scenario design parameters DP11

.

Table 11 comprehensively compares FRs and DPs, detailing how each requirement translates into tangible design elements specifically configured to enhance the usability and functionality of the spaces. This confirms the applicability of the DPs and validates the effectiveness in fulfilling the identified needs.

According to the independence axiom principle of AD theory, the FRs and DPs of the communication space of the special education school are mapped between domains. The mapping relationship is represented as follows:

$$\left\{F{R}_s\right\}=B\left\{D{P}_s\right\}$$

(7)

where B represents the design matrix for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, and FRs and DPs, respectively, denote the sets of functional requirements and design parameters for the design of these interactive spaces.

$\left\{F{R}_s\right\}=\left\{F{R}_1,F{R}_2,F{R}_3,\dots ,F{R}_m\right\}$, $\left\{\begin{array}{c}D{P}_s\end{array}\right\}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}D{P}_1,D{P}_2,D{P}_3,\dots ,D{P}_n\end{array}\right\}$, which can specifically be described as

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}F{R}_1\\ F{R}_2\\ \mathrm{M}\\ F{R}_n\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{b}_{11}& b_{12}& \mathrm{L}& b_{1n}\\ b_{21}& b_{22}& \mathrm{L}& b_{2n}\\ \mathrm{M}& \mathrm{M}& b_{ij}& \mathrm{M}\\ b_{n1}& b_{n2}& \mathrm{L}& b_{nn}\end{array}\right]\times \left[\begin{array}{c}D{P}_1\\ D{P}_2\\ \mathrm{M}\\ D{P}_n\end{array}\right]$$

(8)

where $b_{ij}$ represents the degree of correlation between various DPs within the interactive spaces of schools for children with intellectual disabilities.

By substituting the FRs and DPs of these interactive spaces into Equation (8), the following matrix is obtained:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}F{R}_1\\ F{R}_2\\ F{R}_3\\ F{R}_4\\ F{R}_5\\ F{R}_6\\ F{R}_7\\ F{R}_8\\ F{R}_9\\ F{R}_{10}\\ F{R}_{11}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}X& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O\\ O& X& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O\\ O& O& X& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O\\ O& O& O& X& O& O& O& O& O& O& O\\ O& O& O& O& X& O& O& O& O& O& O\\ O& O& O& O& O& X& O& O& O& O& O\\ O& O& O& O& O& O& X& O& O& O& O\\ O& O& O& O& O& O& O& X& O& O& O\\ O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& X& O& O\\ O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& X& O\\ O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& O& X\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}D{P}_1\\ D{P}_2\\ D{P}_3\\ D{P}_4\\ D{P}_5\\ D{P}_6\\ D{P}_7\\ D{P}_8\\ D{P}_9\\ D{P}_{10}\\ D{P}_{11}\end{array}\right]$$

(9)

In the design matrix for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, the notation “X” indicates a strong correlation between FRs and DPs, suggesting that changes in DPs directly affect the corresponding FRs. Conversely, “O” denotes a weak correlation or no relation, implying that alterations in these DPs minimally or do not affect the FRs. The structure of the design matrix is crucial. In diagonal or triangular matrices, this structure signifies that design parameters are independent, following the principle of uncoupled design. This allows the adjustment of one parameter without impacting others, preserving the integrity of the design process. For generalized matrices, if they demonstrate general form, it indicates coupling between design parameters, violating the independence axiom. In such cases, the matrix requires redesigning to achieve decoupling, ensuring that each parameter operates independently without compromising efficacy.

The design matrix used to create interactive spaces in these schools typically exhibits a diagonal layout, confirming adherence to the independence axiom and underscoring the uncoupled nature of the design parameters. This alignment not only validates the feasibility of the design parameters but also their effectiveness in fulfilling the specific user needs within these interactive spaces.

4.5. Interactive Space Design for Schools for Children with Intellectual Disabilities Based on Kano/AHP/AD Space Design Method

Based on the calculation results from the Kano model, AHP, and AD theory, the design of interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities should incorporate good lighting and environmental design, comprehensive campus emergency facilities, and complete accessibility within the interaction spaces. This design refers to the American ADA Accessibility Standards [36], British BS8300 standards [37,38], and integrates them with the “Special Education School Architectural Design Standards” [39], “Building Daylighting Design Standards” [40], and “Accessibility Design Standards” [41] issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of China. The specific design parameters were determined by analyzing values derived from the “Z” mapping of FRs to DPs according to AD theory. Additionally, through field research and user experience feedback, the aim was to create an interaction space that meets user needs with high usability and safety, while also considering esthetics and functionality, as illustrated in Figure 7a,b. The specific design parameters included the following:

• To optimize lighting and environmental design in interactive spaces for schools for children with intellectual disabilities (DP₁): appropriate lighting and spatial design are crucial. They enhance the functionality and comfort within these spaces, facilitating students’ observation of each other’s gestures and facial expressions during interactions. Based on field survey data and relevant case studies from special education schools in developed countries, it is recommended to set the lighting intensity between 300 and 500 lux, and using a dimmable system to accommodate varying visual needs. Additionally, it is important to use lighting with a central color temperature (3500 K–5000 K) to create suitable conditions for long-term reading and communication. Studies in color psychology indicate that using blue, yellow, and cream colors in spatial environments, especially on flat surfaces and linear or point decorations, create a warm and comfortable atmosphere;
• Design of emergency facilities and safety measures for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities (DP₂, DP₇): the setup of emergency facilities and safety measures must consider the special needs of students with intellectual disabilities to ensure a quick response and efficient handling of emergencies. Emergency medicine kits and automated external defibrillators (AEDs) should be placed in easily accessible locations, such as the main entrances of the interaction spaces and other high-traffic areas. Each area must have a complete set of clearly marked emergency equipment, with the installation height of emergency medicine boxes and AEDs not exceeding 1.20 m to facilitate access by students and staff. Designing safety measures in these interaction spaces primarily involves installing an emergency call system in each area. Field tests ensure that the system provides audio and visual feedback, guaranteeing timeliness and effectiveness of the response. Since outdoor interaction spaces are susceptible to environmental factors, the installed emergency call systems must consider lighting and wiring degradation, requiring regular inspections;
• Designing for accessibility and special requirements in interactive spaces of schools for children with intellectual disabilities (DP₃, DP₄): ensuring that all students can use the spaces safely and comfortably is a crucial aspect of the design. Accessibility design in these spaces typically requires main pathways to be at least 1.20 m wide, secondary pathways at least 0.90 m wide, and door clearances at least 0.90 m. Door handles are usually positioned at approximately 0.85 m. All floors must be level, without steps or thresholds, and made of non-slip materials, especially at entrances. Ramps must not exceed a slope of 1:12, must be at least 1.20 m wide, and must have handrails on both sides. It is important to simplify the spatial layout based on the disability characteristics and special needs of students with intellectual disabilities, and use linear signs and sunflower icons as visual reminders to enhance the user’s spatial awareness;
• Regarding the design for ease of cleaning and safety of facilities in interactive spaces at schools for children with intellectual disabilities (DP₅): considering the cleaning challenges of equipment and facilities within these spaces, the focus is on selecting materials that are easy to clean and resistant to staining. These materials include smooth, non-absorbent wood finishes, ceramic tiles, and other smooth synthetic materials that can withstand frequent cleaning and disinfection without harboring dust and bacteria. Waterproof and anti-fouling paint is applied to walls and floors to facilitate scrubbing and disinfection. Floor materials should be designed with no joints or minimal joints to reduce dust accumulation. Furniture should be made from waterproof and stain-resistant materials such as plastic, metal, or specially treated wood. In terms of safety design within these spaces, furniture and facility edges are rounded or softened. In areas of frequent student interaction, such as corridors and interactive game zones, impact-resistant soft foam boards or other cushioning materials should cover walls to prevent injuries from accidental impacts;
• For the materials’ safety and slip-resistance in the equipment and facilities of interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities (DP₆, DP₈): the selection of materials for designing interactive spaces is crucial for the safe use of equipment and facilities by students with intellectual disabilities. The materials must be both durable and safe. Equipment and facility materials should meet or exceed national safety standards, such as fire prevention, non-toxicity, and low volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Materials with environmental certifications like GREENGUARD and BLUE ANGEL should be preferred. For durability and ease of maintenance, materials like high-pressure laminate and tempered glass, which are wear-resistant, easy to maintain, and long-lasting, are selected. Slip-resistant materials in high-traffic areas of interactive spaces include non-slip ceramic tiles, rubber flooring, or high slip-resistance grade materials with anti-slip textures. For outdoor interactive spaces, slip-resistant materials like treated wood, bamboo steel plates, or outdoor non-slip ceramic tiles are used, with a good drainage system to prevent water accumulation and reduce the risk of slipping.
• For designing teacher–student interaction and learning areas in interactive spaces at schools for children with intellectual disabilities (DP₉, DP₁₀ and DP₁₁): when setting up teacher–student interactive learning areas, special attention must be given to the functionality, comfort, and accessibility to support effective communication and interactive learning. Specifically, an open and multi-functional space with stepped seats allows a flexible configuration to accommodate various teaching activities and group interactions. Learning areas are marked within the communication space and equipped with smart whiteboards, touch screens, and audio equipment, making them accessible to all students with intellectual disabilities.

The design concept is shown in Figure 7a,b, which includes both outdoor and indoor design proposals.

4.6. Evaluation of Interactive Space Design Proposals for Schools for Children with Intellectual Disabilities

The design plans for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, based on the Kano/AHP/AD theoretical framework, are indicated in Figure 7a,b. To assess whether these design proposals meet user needs, a representative interactive space from a specific school was selected as an experimental sample for comparison with the design proposal, illustrated in Figure 8a–c for experimental samples. A user satisfaction survey was conducted using a Likert seven-point scale, distributing 238 questionnaires among students and staff of the school, with 226 valid responses collected.

The statistical analysis involved calculating the mean satisfaction scores for both existing interactive spaces and the newly proposed design, as summarized in

Table 12. Summary of assessment data for experimental samples and design proposal samples.

Sample Name	Average Satisfaction Score	Sample Size	T-Value	p-Value
Experimental Samples (Existing Spaces) Figure 8a–c	3.18	226	7	0.04
Design Proposal Samples Figure 7a,b	5.12

. The results indicated that the experimental samples (existing spaces) had an average score of 3.18, suggesting moderate satisfaction. In contrast, the proposed interactive space design scored significantly higher, with an average of 5.32, indicating much higher satisfaction. A t-test was performed to determine the statistical significance of the difference in satisfaction scores between existing spaces and the proposed design. The T-value was 7, and the difference in mean scores was statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.04 (p < 0.05), confirming that the proposed design substantial improves user satisfaction compared to the current configuration. This analysis demonstrates that the interactive space design for schools for children with intellectual disabilities, guided by this method, significantly enhances user satisfaction. It affirms the effectiveness of integrating the Kano model, AHP, and AD theory in the design process. In conclusion, developing the design method for interactive spaces in these schools is not only feasible but also highly effective, providing valuable insights for future developments in interactive or special education school architecture.

5. Conclusions

Special education is a vital part of China’s educational system and a key element in building a high-quality educational framework. With improving modern living standards, the recreational and entertainment needs of students with intellectual disabilities have evolved. These students now seek comfortable and engaging environments, resulting in diverse and personalized demands for interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities. Therefore, this study integrates the Kano model, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Axiomatic Design (AD) theory to develop an innovative design model for interactive spaces in these schools. The employed research methods have proven effective in identifying and prioritizing user needs and translating these needs into specific design parameters. Integrating the Kano model allows categorizing user needs into different attributes. Subsequently, the AHP method constructs a hierarchical analysis model, accurately calculating the weight values of various user needs, thus identifying the critical needs requiring immediate attention. The AD theory’s independence axiom is applied to achieve a “Z”-shaped mapping between functional requirements (FRs) and design parameters (DPs), ensuring that critical user needs are translated into practical design solutions. The practical application of this research shows that the developed design model can significantly enhance functionality and user satisfaction in interactive spaces for children with intellectual disabilities. Key design criteria identified include optimizing lighting and environmental design to enhance spatial ambiance and support students’ psychological well-being, designing emergency and safety facilities for the quick and efficient handling of emergencies, providing accessible and easy-to-clean facilities, ensuring safety and reliability of equipment and materials, and establishing areas for teacher–student interaction and learning. As a result of this research, several improvements have been made in the design of interactive spaces in schools for children with intellectual disabilities. These improvements include adopting vibrant and engaging spatial layouts, integrating advanced interactive technologies, and using materials that are safe and suitable for students’ needs. After investigation, the proposed design samples achieved an average satisfaction score of 5.12, significantly higher than the experimental samples’ score of 3.18. Future trends indicate a continued focus on creating inclusive and adaptive learning environments that meet functional requirements and promote the overall well-being of students with intellectual disabilities. The ongoing evolution of design standards and the incorporation of user-centered design principles are likely to further enhance the spatial and functional quality of special education schools.