This reading was very insightful. I always viewed medical devices through a lens of pure function, so this focus on design and identity was a new perspective for me. I found the glasses example to be the most compelling. They successfully shed any stigma by embracing fashion. People now wear them as a style choice. This proves that a device for the body does not need to be invisible to be accepted. The conflict between discretion and technology is a difficult one. The hearing aid case shows how the goal of hiding the device can actually limit its performance. I believe the author is correct. The problem is not the user’s desire to hide, but a lack of well-designed alternatives that people would feel confident displaying. I also agree that the “one fits all” model is flawed. The book shows that preferences vary greatly, even among people with the same disability. Some may want a realistic prosthetic, while others prefer a sleek tool or even an artistic statement. A single design cannot meet all these needs. The concepts of “appliances” and “platforms” were new to me. A simple, focused appliance like the iPod shuffle can be more inclusive and delightful than a complex platform trying to do everything. I was also struck by the note on dementia. Learning that it can involve a heightened artistic sense makes thoughtful design even more critical. Beautiful, intuitive objects can significantly improve a person’s daily experience. In my opinion, the core idea is to invite different kinds of creators into this field. Fashion designers and artists can bring new values. They can help create devices that feel like a part of a person’s identity, not just a tool they have to use.