Reading Design Meets Disability made me rethink what I previously considered “good design.” I used to associate good design with aesthetics and general usability, but this reading challenged my assumption by showing how design is deeply tied to social attitudes toward disability. The section on “discretion” stood out to me, where assistive devices like hearing aids are designed to be hidden in order to avoid stigma. This made me question whether invisibility is actually a positive goal, or if it reinforces the idea that disability should be concealed. I found myself reflecting on how design choices are not neutral and that they reflect cultural values about what is considered “normal.” The tension between fashion and disability also left a strong impression on me. While making assistive devices more fashionable can empower users, it also risks emphasizing appearance over accessibility. This contradiction made me realize that design often operates between competing goals rather than clear solutions.
This reading also connected to my previous understanding of user-centered design but expanded it in a way I had not considered before. It made me realize that “the user” is often imagined as a narrow, able-bodied group, which doesn’t take into account many real experiences. The idea of “simple meets universal” raised an important question for me that is it actually possible to design something that works for everyone, or does inclusivity inevitably introduce complexity? This challenges the assumption that simplicity is always better. Personally, this reading shifted my perspective from seeing design as purely functional problem-solving to understanding it as a more cultural and ethical practice that shapes how people are perceived and included. It also made me more aware of the limitations in the designs I encounter daily and how they really reflect broader biases rather than just technical decisions.