## 4 Discussion  
This paper is a part of a larger study and aims to explore the potential of technology use, be it tangible media or internet of things artefacts, in a very specific context. This section will, follow, whenever possible, the same order in which the results were presented. Regarding the literature review it is interesting to reflect on the amount of areas that address SSD, TUIs, or IoTs, as shown in Figure 4. Despite this abundance of areas and keywords, initial queries may not return any article or just a few. It can be said that the literature review evidences a sort of trend in using new technologies as they become  
Figure 12: Set of characteristics that an ideal at-distance continuation of intervention tool should possess. available to address children's SSD. However, results shown in Figure 5 revealed a balance in labels, that can be translated into areas: technology (with IoT, TUI, and applications), communication, ludic approach, the child, and home environment. All the areas play a part in advances and integration that could facilitate tool development. While in this literature review that balance may not have been apparent, due to the search terms used, for future queries this should be taken into consideration. Results from both the FG and questionnaire indicate that those areas also concern SLTs or are deemed very important for a successful intervention. The home environment and how to approach post-intervention in a ludic way while still improving communication with caretakers and children are areas that deeply interest and can impact SLTs' work. Some limitations of reviewed studies included ignoring the need for social interaction with fully autonomous or semi-autonomous activities, i.e., without parents input or without turning parents into activity playmates [100; 103; 109; 117; 119]; assuming that a physical object used in intervention can retain the same value in a remote intervention [113] or not considering the opinions and inputs of children during the design and test phases [116], as well as the need to listen to SLTs and parents throughout the process [123]. The results obtained in the FG share similarities and concerns with the literature that was reviewed, namely, the desire for the artefact to be engaging [108; 118], as well as capable of promoting social interaction [108], and to properly take care of security concerns [125; 126], to name just a few. However, it should be noted that the results stem from a single FG and that this research would benefit from further discussion with SLTs and other relevant parties. As such, further FGs are planned and participants have been recruited. Due to the pandemic, as well as for time saving and commodity, future FGs will be held online using a collaborative software. From initial FG results presented in this paper, several requirements and pitfalls or grey areas arose. These requirements were further divided into high priority to low priority tables, based on existing laws and regulations and difficulty to implement. The requirements in Tables 1-3 can be best contrasted with Figure 12, which suggested the ideal at-a-distance tool characteristics, and was created after analysing the questionnaire results. There is an initial mismatch between the FG and the questionnaire's highest ranked tool or artefact characteristic: Customisation. It can be argued, however, that these characteristics can be akin to customisation, and are present, albeit in medium to low priority tables, namely, enabling various difficulty levels, questions, and time to complete actions on a player per player basis, as well as enabling avatar creation. That mismatch disappears, with subsequent characteristics being equally chosen or referenced, although sometimes not by the same exact word, in both instruments or methods. The questionnaire, despite attempts made to involve existing SLTs associations, had few full responses: Only 33 out of 114 SLTs fully answered it, meaning roughly 29% full participation rate.