While going through the text, a specific passage that took my attention is the discussion about hearing aids. Unlike glasses, whose design has undergone comparatively less change, the writer highlights the evolving nature of hearing aids, emphasizing not only the modifications in their appearance but also the constant transformation of their discreet placement.
And in the part where, ‘Simple meets universal’, the author explores the complexities of designing for special needs, especially when dealing with a minority of the population. On one hand, there is a compelling business argument against further fragmenting the market by tailoring designs for small percentages of users. The concern here is that such a specialized approach might limit the product’s reach and economic viability.
Conversely, the concept of inclusive design, also known as universal design, introduces a principle-based contention. Inclusive design, by definition, aims to cater to the entire population. This definition intertwines two critical aspects: the acknowledgment that individuals possess varying abilities, and a recognition that people may have diverse needs and preferences regardless of their abilities. The former is commonly addressed through multimodal interfaces, incorporating visual, audible, and tactile cues to accommodate those with impaired touch, hearing, and/or sight. Meanwhile, the latter is often managed through multifunctional platforms, incorporating numerous features to appeal to a broad range of users.
A central question raised by the author is whether the pursuit of universal design, aiming to accommodate a diverse user base, might inadvertently lead to overly complex designs. There is a tension between the goal of inclusivity and the risk of creating designs that are intricate and potentially challenging to use. This prompts a consideration of how truly inclusive such designs are, and whether there are insights to be gained from navigating these design complexities.