This week’s reading “Design meets Disability” seemed to capture the essence of a good design through the lens of disability. The author begins with the conversation regarding the traditional absence of design or focus on appearance in goods created to aid a disability. With an emphasis on discretion, the object often serves contrary to its purpose by depriving the wearer of a positive image and instead results in stigmatizing the disability. It was interesting to note that an object’s association with design often changes with the way it is categorized, evident in the example of eyewear transforming from an object of disability to that of fashion. Through this observation I was reminded of a previous reading that sparked a conversation about form versus function in a design. As mentioned in an earlier response, that an ideal design would be one that is able to strike a balance between the two. However, this article further prompted me to take into consideration the preference of people who often have varying needs. The inclusion of design can definitely be a boost for the self-confidence of people but it is useful only if it is done without compromising the intended functionality.
Reflecting on the ideas presented, I felt that it may be interesting to consider creating all existing items with more thought and consideration instead of creating an entire separate line of products for disability. While this brings us back to the debate around simple design over a universal design, I think making designs inclusive through simple tactile and auditory inputs can be done without complicating its usability. Finally, a user-centric design remains the top priority and it is necessary to ensure a product reflects simplicity, inclusion, design and allows the user to develop a positive self-image which can be achieved by involving all relevant people including designers in the creation of a product.