This text was fun to read, especially as someone somewhat interested in creating disability tech in the future. I agree with Barnes’ statement that “design depends largely on constraints.” We design projects to work around human problems. E.g. chairs are made of different heights because humans come in different heights, and want a chair they can sit on comfortably (which is their purpose). Headphones come in different styles because some people prefer overhead while others prefer buds that go inside your ears instead. So, when we go into designing for problems, we can’t just look at the surface level problem. We need to dig deeper, which is what a lot of designs fail to do, especially in relation to disability and accommodation. I found it interesting that disability inspired good design and not the other way around, because I would have expected it to be the other way.
Regarding the paragraph titled “discretion,” I have also wondered about this. I liked this quote a lot in the text too: “mediocrity can result in people being further stigmatized by the very products intended to remove barriers.” Having a disability is already so frowned upon, so it is heartbreaking to see that design can further perpetuate this. A disability is a part of you, so why are we hiding that aspect and promoting shame? I’m glad today that we are going against this, for example, in making prosthetic limbs customized and flashy. I saw someone make their prosthetic leg look like a gun (not that I’m endorsing violence, but it’s cool nonetheless to customize and make statements with your disability that aren’t just statements related to that).
As a glasses wearer myself, it’s funny for me to see people wear fake glasses for the sake of fashion, or as the text puts it, wearing glasses as a “medical necessity” to a “key fashion accessory.” However, that also made me reflect that maybe, in my head, I have this belief that is actually supporting the incorrect belief that disability has to be something isolated. By encouraging glasses as a fashion statement, we are normalizing a disability, which is a thing we need to do more often, especially with other disabilities. I liked the point in the text where it states, “brightly colored frames exist, although they are still a minority taste.” While this is slowly decreasing today with the rise of “cool girls wearing funky frames,” I do agree that this was much more prevalent when I was younger (I was, in fact, victim to wireless rectangle glasses that made me look at least 5 years older than I actually was.) Hearing aids is actually something I wanted to talk about before I completely finished reading the text, because people did try and hide the fact that they were wearing hearing aids earlier, but now, singers use earplugs that look similar to hearing aids all the time to prevent becoming deaf. Interesting. (Another thing I find intriguing as a person with disabilities: there are many times where things aren’t socially acceptable until a person (or multiple) of a high social standing do something.)
When you design something, it is highly unlikely that your product is accessible to every single person on Earth, whether it be for people with certain disabilities, or even people without. I liked the example of the flying submarine, or any product that has so many features but become overburdened. It reminded me a lot of apps that have way too many features to be accommodative, but end up becoming overwhelming instead. By trying to solve one problem, you cause another problem instead. I never thought that by removing features you can make things more accessible, so I liked reading that point.
Disabilities are very complex, and the word itself is an umbrella term for so many things. Thus, disability is not monolithic, and not heterogeneous. Ultimately, there is no fixed way to decide how to design to accommodate, so the best thing we, as designers, can do is understand who our product aims to benefit, and whether this product would benefit from a more simplistic, complex, bright or subtle design. That’s what makes every designer and their work different to others: how we decide to think when we face a problem.