## 4 Discussion
As noted, this may have been due to its length and the added chore of having to justify each answer. In hindsight, while collecting valuable information, this may have been detrimental. Perhaps an approach in which each question group was an independent questionnaire, presented as a follow-up within a week to a fortnight space in-between would have been preferable, as well as some mechanism to reward or inform the participants, in order to keep their interest and cooperation. Despite the low response rate, the questionnaire was invaluable in highlighting the needs, the modus operandi of the SLTs, their desires and even reservations or fears regarding tools, such as TUIs for IoT artefacts. An interesting result from the characterisation of the respondents, already commented in the results section pertaining with the questionnaire was how skewed it was towards more experienced SLTs. Some questions that could arise due to this skewness are: Do more experienced SLTs have fears related to the use of technology in general (technophobia [129]), or some form of technology avoidance [130]? Or are they so engrossed in their usual practices that have proven to deliver results, and as such they are not interested in using new approaches? Despite the reported feelings, SLTs' when asked about ideal characteristics for a remote tool, did not refuse to answer,and the answers denoted a careful consideration over the issue. This is to be explored in the forthcoming FGs. In order to ascertain the degree of \"fear\" or technology avoidance, the technology acceptance model (TAM), developed by [PERSON] [131], can be used. This model seeks to explain and predict how probable it is for an individual or an organisation to adopt new technology, based in 5 variables, namely, perceived use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward use, behavioural intention to use, and actual use [132]. There are external or independent variables that may impact the technology acceptance up to 60.2% [133], such as facilitating conditions, functionality and accessibility. Also of importance for this research, particularly regarding the design of the TUI itself, is the importance of a positive user experience [134, 135] and how it adds up to the sense of usefulness [132] leading to a greater acceptance. Speech and language therapists were evenly distributed between the main areas (Health and Education) of work, but there was a large number of SLTs working in the private sector, which influenced this study, namely, if SLTs can or cannot contact the family of a child. This is a factor to take into consideration when designing a prototype, particularly regarding testing and dissemination. A common concern linked to the lack of interest in home-based intervention, was the limited amount of the child's free time and time spent with the family. Interestingly, this concern was similarly voiced during the FG, both in the possible pitfalls (should not contribute to the feeling of wasted time) and in various activity requirements. The question of time and how children with SSD should use it was addressed in [124], and that study offers interesting observations to take into account in prototyping, such as the constant starting and stopping activities by children with SSD and problems of behavioural consistency, that may be caused by their communication problems and reasoning skills. In order to maintain focus and interest in the activity itself, it has to be versatile and customisable to allow sudden changes and features that enhance the activity, such as storytelling, game flow, and avatars. We also looked into how SLTs perceived the importance of family involvement, how they acted to promote it and the need to train parents. Some of the SLTs' workplaces did not encourage family involvement, which may have been due to a variety of reasons, such as economic, social, or even lack of interest.