Designing Inclusive Systems
Systems play an integral part in our world. However, designing systems for humans is a tough ask, especially given the fact that homo sapiens are anything but homogeneous. The reality of one human being may differ from the reality of another. The value system of one person may differ from the value system of another. These ‘mental models’ can influence how we design and use the systems around us.
To illustrate this further, a studio activity invited us to take the example of the human body as a complex system of systems through two different mental models — first, the present day ‘modern medicine’ or allopathic model and second, through any alternative model of healing.
In allopathic medicine, the body is seen as an interconnected system of systems. It comprises of separate systems like the circulatory system, respiratory system, digestive system, etc. Ailments are usually seen through a linear cause-effect model and treatments are administered accordingly.
Alternatively, in the Japanese healing philosophy of Reiki, the human body is understood as simply energy. The entire body consists of different energy points which extend inside as well as outside the body. An ailment in one part of the body, is seen as a distortion in the energy of the entire body in recognition of the non-linearity of the system. Therefore, a ‘cure’ or healing process will focus on restoring energy balance for the whole body.
Thus, the approach or ‘mental model’ at play, will determine how we view the system, design system goals, and identify potential leverage points. And the more open or dynamic a system is, the more likely it is to address changing needs and goals. For example, allopathy is recognizing the gaps in their approach which can be seen with the advent of a new branch of medicine called Osteopathy, which employs a ‘whole person’ approach to health care and acknowledges the interconnectedness of systems within and outside the body. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Like systems in the body, the systems in our world are also interconnected and non-linear. They are influenced by the world around them and reflect the values of the designers, the users, the physical setting, the social setting, and everything else in between.
In the context of public systems which need to cater to a huge number of varied users, many systems end up being designed for the ‘average’ or ‘typical’ user. There is little thought given to the outliers or atypical users of these systems, especially when a system has to function at scale. This is where the mental model of the designers becomes even more relevant.
For a designer to design an inclusive public system, an intersectional lens may be helpful to go beyond their cognitive limitations. There are multiple toolkits available which can support the creation of inclusive, accessible, and sustainable design. For example, Stanford University’s Gender in Design Toolkit asks designers the following questions:
“1. When thinking about women, it is important to ask: Which women? Young women, old women; rich women, poor women, white women, Asian women?
2. When you think about men and women are you thinking of hetereosexuals? Or also gays? Or also gender-fluid individuals?
3. When thinking of occupation, are you inclusive, e.g., considering male nurses or female construction workers? What about left-handed surgeons?
4. Does your design work across cultures, religions, incomes, races and geographic locations?”
In our context, let’s take the example of a health care system. Some questions for designers to consider could be: Is it accessible to someone who doesn’t fall within the ‘average’ user? Is there a way to reduce the gender pain bias? How would a sex worker access these services? How do young unmarried women access sexual health services? How would an upper-caste Hindu patient engage with a Dalit doctor? Can a healthcare system be inclusive, by design?
Questions such as these may be helpful to look beyond our own mental models and design systems that work for everyone. It may even open up the possibilities of participatory design. Designing systems which are open and accessible for a heterogeneous set of users is, of course, easier said written than done. The practicalities of time, space, policies, etc. will always be a factor but, the possibility of more dynamic and inclusive systems is definitely encouraging.
