Masters of Industrial Design

Design For Disability

Written by Graham Pullin and published by MIT press, Design for Disability methodically challenges the conventional role of design (or lack thereof) within the established medical assistive device industry. His outlook for collaboration between the two is positive and perhaps best summarized by his exploration of eyeglasses from a purely assistive device to a modern day fashion accessory. If eyeglasses correct a ‘disability’ while also acting as an extension of your personality, cannot all medical devices do the same? The shift from a medical model of disability as something to be cured to a social model that acknowledges wider social contexts is explored. is commended for its ability to create dialogue and discussion.

The book itself is methodically structured into two main sections, the first exploring tensions that exist between the medical engineering and design fields and the second pairing well known designers with disability products and questioning what could result. Tensions explored by Pullin include: fashion meets discretion, exploring meets solving, simple meets universal, identity meets ability, provocative meets sensitive, feeling meets testing, and expression meets information. In each chapter these opposing terms are defined in context of their respective medical or design cultures, the tensions they create explained, and the possible collaboration of these tensions explored though actual case studies. For example, the Apple iPod Shuffle exemplifies the tensions between simple and universal. Pullin’s pairings in the second section are thought provoking: Jonathan Ive (Industrial designer at Apple) meets hearing aids, Vexed (fashion design company) meets wheelchair capes, and Dunne&Raby (critical designers) meets memory aids.

The semantics of disability are discussed by Pullin as a preface to these two sections and a running theme throughout the book – terminology varies surprisingly among governments and proactive organizations. Is one hard of hearing, deaf, or hearing-impaired? Does designing for people with disabilities exclude designing for everyone else? Inclusive design and universal design may have the same goal (mainstream design accessible to everyone) yet their literal interpretations are deceivingly different (1-3). Semantics, it turns out, are critical when seeking to create a sustainable dialogue between design and disability.

The image projected by current assistive devices if often shameful and reflective of the traditional medical model where a disability is something to be cured. According to Pullin, when glasses were first prescribed in the 1960’s and 1970’s they were made from ‘invisible’ pink plastic meant to disguise their presence. Their singular purpose was to correct a vision problem. Pullin notes (17) “there is something undermining about invisibility that fails: a lack of self-confidence that can communicate an implied shame.” In other words, medical assistive devices that attempt to hide themselves make a statement that the users disability itself should be hidden. This mindset is a harmful one. Rather, medical devices should embrace disability as an extension of the users personality. Like a tastefully designed pair of glasses, where everything – from materials, colors, logos, and even the hinges – is on display for the world to see, a medical device should be designed as an outward expression of confidence, rather then one hidden shamefully hidden within.

However, it cannot be assumed that all disabled people seek to embrace their disability. Pullin explores the distinction between Deaf with a capital D and deaf with a lowercase d. People that are Deaf with a capital D see deafness as an integral part of their personality. They may be oblivious to modern treatments that can offer hearing restoration. Their Deafness is not something to be cured but rather it defines who they are. In contrast, people that are deaf with a lowercase d see their hearing loss as a hindrance and a social stigma. This distinction, according to Pullin (102) “…is clearly a fundamental segmentation of a hearing loss market…” and “Similar distinctions can apply to other disabilities, and the extent to which individuals chose to define themselves in terms of in spite of their disabilities.” (102.) This could be a case against universal design, Pullin notes, as removing barriers based on ability may harm these distinctions. Both sides may perceive a different role for design in the assistive device industry.

Pullin proposes the term resonant design to describe design that considers both disabled and able-bodied persons. Resonant design, while not universal or one-size-fits all, is “intended to address the needs of some people with a particular disability and other people without that disability but perhaps finding themselves in particular circumstances” (93.) Consider a watch that indicates time both traditionally with dials and physically through vibrations. This added feature would be necessary for a vision-impaired user and beneficial for the average user finding themselves in a situation where it may be inappropriate (or rude) to check the time, for example during a business meeting.

Another example used in the book is IDEO’s voice command PDA. Here the importance of bringing vision-impaired people onto the design team is stressed. Perhaps this is a critical point for the design field in general. Bring people onto your team with experience in the areas you are designing for. In the case of IDEO’s voice command PDA, these visually impaired participants were experts on the current technology available. Thus they understood the pros and cons of current technology, and in this specific case, understood the importance of adding a particular feature (93-94.)

People traditionally associate design with making something pretty – pure aesthetics. Pullin challenges this notion and praises modern design for its consideration of more than just looks. He questions why an engineering major is more likely to design a wheelchair rather than a furniture designer. Why is an interface designed by a computer science major rather than an interaction design major? (45.) Pullin specifically discusses critical design for its ability to make us think. (121.) Rather than solving problems or finding answers, critical design seeks to create dialogue and discussion and bring important cultural and societal issues into light. Do we measure a person by their disability or their level of ability? As “…Human abilities are not just restored but surpassed…” (35) design will play a pivotal role in defining these distinctions.