The neurodiversity design gap

When function fails intention

Over the past decade, neurodiversity has moved from the margins of inclusion to a mainstream design consideration. But while awareness has grown, the tools meant to support neurodivergent people — particularly those with autism and ADHD — still frequently fall short.

Much of the problem lies in the mismatch between design philosophy and cognitive reality. Most digital tools are built on principles optimised for neurotypical users: speed, novelty, visual richness, and behavioural nudges that assume consistent executive function. For neurodivergent people, those same features can create friction, overstimulation, and even total disengagement.

Design that misunderstands the mind

Even when tools are well-meaning, they often replicate a key failure: surface-level adaptation without structural change. Features like “calm mode” or “focus timers” are bolt-ons, not foundational design shifts.

This leads to systemic misalignment with how many autistic and ADHD users actually engage with information and environments. Key issues include:

Cognitive load creep: Interfaces with too many branching paths, alerts, or unstructured content increase anxiety and reduce task follow-through.
Decision paralysis: Providing dozens of configuration options or abstract prompts (e.g. “How are you feeling?”) can backfire, especially for users with alexithymia or executive processing challenges.
Sensory discordance: Interfaces with sudden transitions, jarring sound cues, or high-saturation palettes can trigger discomfort or shutdown.
Misuse of rewards and tracking: For many neurodivergent users, gamified systems or behavioural tracking feel infantilising or manipulative, rather than empowering.

These patterns aren’t fringe, they’re common. And they’re often the reason tools designed “for inclusion” fail to be used.

A research-based shift in direction

Recent work in cognitive psychology, occupational therapy, and HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) has shown the importance of designing from the inside out to align tools with real-world routines, neurophysiological needs, and the lived flow of a day.

Studies show:

Increased cognitive control and emotional regulation when tasks are presented with clear temporal structure, limited choice, and strong visual sequencing (Luciano et al., 2021; Hume et al., 2009).
Reduced task avoidance in individuals with executive function differences when interface load is minimised and tasks are chunked into pre-defined, actionable steps (Barkley, 2015; Bower et al., 2020).
Improved engagement in autistic and ADHD users with environments that reduce novelty, visual clutter, and variable feedback timing (Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2014).

Inclusion, then, is not a layer. It is an operational constraint. And designing under that constraint of building calm, structured experiences, creates tools that work not just for neurodivergent people, but for everyone operating under cognitive strain.

Toward neuroadaptive design

04

The goal isn’t to build “autism-specific” or “ADHD-friendly” tech. It’s to normalise neuroadaptive design and tools that are built for the variability of real brains, in real conditions.

That means:

Interfaces that can be visually and cognitively simplified without stripping function
Language that assumes literal interpretation and reduces ambiguity
Flow structures that reward consistency over novelty
UX models that respect autonomy without demanding constant micro-decisions

These are not niche features. They are the next baseline, if we want tools that are inclusive not just in intent, but in impact.

References

Barkley, R. A. (2015). Executive Functioning and Self-Regulation: Integration with ADHD. Guilford Press.
Hume, K., Boyd, B., Hamm, J., & Kucharczyk, S. (2009). Supporting Independence in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Review of Evidence-Based Practices. Remedial and Special Education.
Gillespie-Lynch, K., Kapp, S. K., Brooks, P. J., Pickens, J., & Schwartzman, B. (2014). Whose Expertise Is It? Evidence for Autistic Adults as Critical Autism Experts. Frontiers in Psychology.
Bower, A., Momennejad, I., & Voss, J. L. (2020). Chunking and Working Memory in ADHD: A Cognitive Profile Approach. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Luciano, G. R., & Hott, B. L. (2021). Visual Supports and Task Completion for Individuals with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

Designing tech to calm, not overstimulate

Too often, apps designed for neurodivergent users are visually noisy, overloaded with features, or packed with bright colours and distracting elements. While well-intended, this kind of design can quickly overwhelm users with sensory sensitivities or executive function challenges, making the very tools meant to help them harder to use.

At Senseful, we take a different approach.

Our design philosophy is centred around calm, clarity, and control. Every element is intentional, from muted colour palettes and low-intensity visuals, to clear structure and predictable user journeys. We avoid unnecessary animations, cluttered layouts, or language that feels corporate or clinical.

We also believe in giving users meaningful choices without creating overwhelm. Whether it’s setting personal preferences, building routines, or receiving support, our tools are designed to feel intuitive and safe, not demanding or confusing.

It’s not just about making technology accessible. It’s about making it comfortable. By co-designing with autistic users, we ensure every design decision reflects lived experience and not assumptions.

Because good tech for neurodivergent people doesn’t need to shout. It just needs to work.