Reframing Disability & Design

“Our notion of disability is that ‘disability’ is a mismatch between the needs of the individual and the service, product, or environment offered. It’s not a personal trait; it’s a relative condition brought about by bad design”

This is a quote by Jutta Treviranus, a professor at the Inclusive Design Research Centre at OCAD University. She is saying that there is really no such thing as “disability”, just bad design.

She is challenging our commonly held understandings about disability, and in doing so, challenging us as designers to reconsider our approach to designing for people whom society considers to be “disabled.” She is encouraging us to remove the negative connotations of “disability” by removing the “dis,” and to broaden our perspective to consider our users collectively instead of as “people of differing abilities.”

Disability is often defined as “a condition that limits a person’s movements, senses or activities,” but this leads us to ask: as designers, is this not the challenge with all human interaction that we try to address through the products we design, and if not, should it not be? In this sense, she is suggesting that we should try to avoid otherising and labelling people with differing abilities to ourselves as “disabled,” and only consider how we can ensure that our designs cater for the wider spectrum of human ability. The World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C’s) ethos with regards to accessibility has always been to remove barriers and make the web as inclusive as possible. In their manifesto on accessibility, they explain how they aim for people of differing abilities, genders, ages and cultural/socio-economic backgrounds to participate equally in the world wide web. Most importantly W3C concludes by describing web users collectively as “people with diverse abilities,” and it is this positive perspective on human differences that is at the core of great design that lasts.

In her quote above, Treviranus takes the Donald Norman approach to design of “don’t blame yourself: blame the designer.” We are servicing many needs, with users from a diverse range of backgrounds that should not be ignored, because if we ignore the needs of our users, we are failing as designers.

As an expert on inclusive design, Treviranus describes the importance of something she calls “The Three Dimensions of Inclusive Design” which I will try to summarise below:

Recognize diversity and uniqueness : Whilst we need to be careful how we label “disabled” people to avoid negative bias, this is not the same as ignoring the diverse range of needs that people with differing abilities present. This is based on the idea that no one is actually average. She writes: “As individuals spread out from the hypothetical average, the needs of individuals that are outliers, or at the margins, become ever more diverse.” Unfortunately, whilst it is easier to build a one-size-fits-all design, “one-size-fits-one” is the most optimal for user satisfaction. The solution, therefore, must be personalizable, “flexible” or “adaptable systems” which digital interfaces are ideal for.

Inclusive process and tools : A common argument against pursuing inclusivity and diversity in design practice is that it is not financially viable. However, Scott E. Page, professor of complex systems at the University of Michigan has used mathematical modelling to show that groups that include large diversity in people, and diversity in perspectives, are more successful in decision-making, innovation, and organizational strength. According to his research, by considering wider perspectives when looking at a problem, the ultimate solution will be more robust and effective. So, how do we ensure that we keep our perspectives as wide and diverse as possible? According to Treviranus and Page, we can do this by first ensuring that our design teams are diverse, as well as ensuring that we are constantly speaking to people from a broad spectrum of different backgrounds. Rich Donovan suggests that this range should include what he describes as “extreme users,” or individuals who have a distinctly different human experience to the average user. This echoes the disability activism mantra “nothing about us without us” which should hold true in all UX design practice. We must make sure that our users are represented respectfully and participate in our design practice. Ironically, we need to see that systems designed without inclusivity in mind are, in fact, the ones which should be considered “specialized.”

Broader Beneficial Impact : There is a real need for designers to be responsible and consider the broader impact and context of our designs once in the hands of diverse audiences. Doing this benefits both the client and the user as this leads to what Treviranus describes as a “virtuous cycle of inclusion.” This is a ripple effect where designers and users begin to recognize cues and learn from each other through observing effectively implemented inclusive design.

Effectively these 3 rules serve to highlight the fact that not all of us have the same abilities or needs, and building a product that is considerate of all users ensures robustness and greater longevity.

Accessibility is certainly going to be an increasingly hot topic when it comes to UX and web design over the coming years, with Ontario requiring organisations’ websites to be fully compliant to their accessibility benchmarks (WCAG 2.0 Level AA compliance) by 2021. The tech giants such as Apple and Facebook are making commitments to greater design focussed towards accessibility in 2018. Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella describes Microsoft’s commitment, working with Jutta herself, to define their new design ethos built around accessibility for all, dubbed “inclusive design”.

Ultimately, being a good designer for inclusivity should be the same as just being a good designer. We need to reframe designing for disability to mean designing for anyone excluded from design. This means that everyone should benefit from inclusive design. This perspective can help us to reduce the trend of otherising people who do not conform to our perspective of societal norms and reminds us that it is no longer about “them” and “us”, but about “all of us.” Systems designed inclusively work better for everyone.

Sources

Inclusive Design Research Centre = https://idrc.ocadu.ca/

Return On Disability = http://returnondisability.com/disability-market/

New York Times = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08conv.html

Fast Code Design = https://www.fastcodesign.com/90153796/the-9-big-design-trends-that-will-shape-2018

Wikipedia = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_About_Us_Without_Us