This reading honestly made me rethink a lot about how design and disability are connected, because I always saw design for disability as something more functional, like just solving a problem, but it’s actually way more about perception and culture. What I found really interesting is how a lot of mainstream design actually comes from disability, like the Eames leg splint influencing modern furniture, which shows that when designers work with real constraints they come up with better ideas. I also liked the idea of “trickle-up” design because it’s so true today, like voice assistants or accessibility tools that everyone uses now. At the same time, the reading made me question the idea of designing for everyone, because when things try to do too much they end up being confusing instead of inclusive. The part about hiding vs showing disability stood out a lot too, because design often tries to make disability invisible, but that can actually reinforce stigma, while things like glasses became something people want to wear. I do agree that simplicity is important, but not just visually, more in terms of making things actually understandable and usable. But I also think the reading pushes a bit too much toward making disability expressive through design, because not everyone wants that, some people just want something that works and doesn’t draw attention. So for me the main idea is that design isn’t neutral, it shapes how we see people, and instead of choosing one approach, it should give people the option to either hide or express their disability depending on what they want.