The reading is essentially asking why design for disability has historically been so focused on making things disappear rather than making them good. The author uses the Eames leg splint as his opening example, something designed for injured navy personnel that also happens to be genuinely beautiful, and I think that object does a lot of work in setting up his argument. If a leg splint can be that considered and elegant, why are hearing aids still being molded in pink plastic and engineered to hide? The glasses section is the one I kept thinking about after I finished reading. I found it interesting how spectacles were once classified as medical appliances and their wearers as patients, and that the goal was explicitly for them to not be styled. And now, they’ve become a sort of fashion accessory. I think about my own experience being short and how much of my early relationship with my appearance was about minimizing rather than owning it, avoiding certain things because I did not want to draw attention to something I felt self-conscious about. I recognize now that instinct is exactly what the author is critiquing. Trying to make something invisible does not make it go away, it just communicates that you think it should be hidden, and I think that says more than the thing itself ever would. I kept thinking that somewhere along the way, the priority shifted from helping someone hear to helping them hide the fact that they need help hearing, and those are very different design briefs with very different outcomes for the person wearing it.