I agree with the author’s perspective that adopting a discreet design for “aids” may not be the optimal choice. This approach perpetuates the notion that these aids conflict with societal norms and thereby draw undue attention, and so should be concealed. This inadvertently contributes to the stigmatization of disabilities in general, reinforcing the idea that it is something to be embarrassed about. Nevertheless, I understand that individuals with disabilities may desire discrete designs due to probable negative attention towards their conditions. Society often reacts adversely to things that deviate from the norm, leading some to prefer aids that blend in. Considering the limited market for disability-related products, it may be pragmatic to focus on designs that cater to the majority rather than a smaller fraction of individuals who embrace their disabilities and seek products that stand out.
I resonate with the notion that the lack of stigma surrounding bad eyesight is attributed to the normalization of glasses as a fashion accessory. The integration of glasses into everyday wear, regardless of bad/ good eyesight, has contributed to their acceptance and reduced their visibility as a medical aid. This normalization could serve as a valuable model for the design of other aids, reducing the perception of these devices as conspicuous or abnormal. The article’s observation about the exclusion of designers in the creation of aids, such as prosthetics and hearing aids, is particularly poignant. It seems paradoxical that individuals who themselves may use aids are not involved in their design. This exclusion perpetuates the categorization of aids as purely medical products, further intensifying the stigma associated with bodily “aids”. Inclusion of designers with personal experiences of using aids could offer valuable insights, bridging the gap between functionality and aesthetic appeal and challenging the prevailing stigmas associated with these essential tools.