The reference to Charles Eames really stuck with me. “Design depends largely on constraints” — I think so too. What is good design if not bad design? It is easy to define bad design. It’s a jumble of elements that do not fit together, but forced into a whole that bears a discordant existence. Good design on the other hand, seems harder to articulate, but what cannot be told can be suggested, which seems to be Pullin’s standpoint as he enters the discussion of designing for special needs. Discretion has been appreciated as a design element when designing for disability, but, on the other hand, in the case of eyewear, there is an existing positive image, and so invisibility is not necessarily a consideration here. This is understandable; that every product has a different context surrounding itself and its design should be in accordance. But then Puliln also says, “fashion can be understated, and discretion does not require invisibility.” The discussion that follows illustrates how several parameters interact in defining the constraints of design, and the design of something transcends the thing itself and blends into people’s perception of other, related concepts, as is in the case of the design of eyewear and fashion.