The author, Graham Pullin, makes an interesting case that the design of assistive technologies and products for people with disabilities has often been overly utilitarian and has neglected aesthetics, identity, and broader quality of life considerations. He argues that assistive devices should be designed not just for narrow functionality but as fashionable, desirable consumer products that can enhance the user’s self-image and social interactions.
Pullin’s perspective aligns with the modern social model of disability, which holds that people are often more disabled by environmental and socio barriers rather than by their physical or mental impairments. Well-designed assistive products can help break down those barriers. And by making such products stylish and attractive to use, they may also help combat the stigma frequently associated with disability and assistive tech.
I agree with Pullin’s core ideas. Too often, assistive devices have looked medical, institutional, and perhaps alienating marking the user as different in a negative way. But that’s not always true. For example, Eyeglasses have evolved from purely functional visual aids to fashion accessories worn even by those who don’t medically require them. One could make an argument that other kinds of aids could potentially become part of someone’s fashion.
The author argues for diversity and choices in design but this is not always desirable. Sometimes having too many choices just makes the user more confused as we discussed in earlier articles, and a more simplistic approach is the best.
Redesigning already established tools won’t necessarily solve all the issues associated with the negative stigma surrounding disability. For example, you might improve wheelchair design, and make it more techy and futuristic, but again one will always see it as a wheelchair and I doubt it will become a fashion theme in the general public. Additionally, even if you improve wheelchair design, it’s all about the surrounding environment that makes it accessible, which should often be a key focus. With more complex design choices affordability becomes a problem. More elaborate choices in eyewear have made them pretty expensive where people chase brand values and collaborations rather than their actual utility.
Despite, all these I firmly believe that creativity always emerges on top and people will find ways to make all “disability” associated designs more mainstream. Nevertheless, we should not forget that first of all, it’s about core utility and accessibility and less about mainstream fashion trends. If costs become marginal, then perhaps one could view them in the same terms. We are far from that future but not as far as one might have imagined when the article was originally published.