Design Meets Disability is an extremely captivating piece that raised interesting questions for me to contemplate. I find the first example, with glasses, to be the most compelling, as it illustrates that design is a necessary component even for seemingly medical tools and devices. It is surprising to learn that glasses were initially not intended to be styled at all, whereas nowadays they belong to their own branch of fashion. The fact that glasses are not simply used but worn gives them importance from a different perspective: as a social tool rather than purely a medical one. Similarly, design is critical for various prosthetics, and each one of them has its own specifics. Unlike glasses, prosthetics are integrations of the body, a crucial factor for designers to consider.
The text also touches upon the universality of design, a concept I approach with caution. While design can aim for inclusivity, I don’t believe a single design can ever accommodate everyone at once. This goal is elusive and should not be the designer’s primary focus. It was interesting to point out two different approaches to “universality” in design: one that tries to include everything so it works for everyone, and another that, on the contrary, makes the design as simplistic as possible to ensure it is universally straightforward to use.
Both methods are quite problematic, and the task of a good designer is to situate their work somewhere in between these two extremes. However, what is certain is that universality should not be the primary goal of design; simplicity should be valued above all. I agree with the text’s author that good design is not only about how an object looks but, more importantly, about how it works, as Steve Jobs aptly stated. This principle applies to everything, from iPod to an arm prosthetic.