Environments IV F2023 Readings
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Readings
I’m Not Your Inspiration
I really enjoyed this Ted Talk. I once read an article about disabled model Emily Barker (https://www.vogue.com/vogueworld/article/emily-barker-model-artist-los-angeles-disability-fashion) who’s starred in numerous, prestigious fashion labels. However, due to her condition, she technically does not qualify for SSH, and makes 0 income and compensation out of her career. For the most part, she does what she do for her friends and to continue spreading awareness.
Even regarding the economic and government legalities on disabled individuals, it’s unfortunate that being seen means to be seen as an inspirational label: and one that is nothing more than a figurehead.
The Beauty of Spaces
This article was the first time I’ve ever heard of cripspace. After viewing some clips, I found it really beautiful how performers were able to incorporate their wheelchairs as an extension of their bodies.
From reading this, I realize it’s a bit strange how rarely curves and slopes are integrated in a lot of spaces to this day. Even in the auditorium I’m currently sitting in (which contains a ramp), it’s just as packed as another classroom I’m required to sit into, which only has stairs.
Going further into the article, I think that the discussion of the “refusal to consider the diversity of human experience,” is an interesting point. A lot of physical spaces and criticism is drawn from ignorance. For example, in anti-homeless benches, people that aren’t aware of the targeted functionality will consider them strange. “What’s the point of this?” Is a common sentence a lot of them say, and will continue to say for many forms of furniture and other structures existing in the world.
It’s very difficult to get people to understand reasoning behind designs if it doesn’t cater to themselves. And to be quite frank, I think it’s virtually impossible to eliminate the ability bias this article speaks upon. If there’s a solution more effective than simply spreading awareness, it would be a good goal to have.
Becoming a passenger exploring the situational passenger experience and airport design in the Copenhagen Airport
This article established a lot of interesting insights on way-finding airport terminals between passengers, but I found it terribly micromanaging. The concept of adhering to the “free-will” of a passenger, and how everyone undergoes a temporary transformation/change that requires the development of skills is something contradicting that I want to criticize.
I do believe that every airport has a set protocol, and I found the diagram with actors and factors to be relatively correct. At the same time, a situational passenger is mean tot be situational because of the needs and wants that the conclusion specified. One passenger may consider a seamless experience a series of resourceful and relaxing rest stops, while another may consider it to be the easiest possible pathway from A to B that the intro chastised so. Situational means to be diverse, and that’s something that will continuously be developed over time (and not just compressed for efficiency quickly in the way they promote agile design).
I think interviewing different passengers was really helpful in seeing the deliberate navigational and thought processes, so I hope to consider those when expanding on further projects. The concept of airport navigation plus the needs and wants of the individual is deeply complex, and physical factors like time, health and environment are all apparent as well.
Inclusive Designers
For a long time, I considered universal design something more basic, such as the shape of door handles or having UI that could be used globally and intuitively. I think this book section addressed a lot of things that I wish I knew earlier in my design journey: products that should be adjusted for not just permanently disabled, but even situationally disabled individuals.
Porter’s example of gaming resonated with me a lot (even in class Yash discussed this in regards to gaming consoles).
However, I do wonder how these products line up in the marketing/business models. For one, more “professional” gamers are considered professional because they are able-bodied enough to have a strong skillset. The combination of this target audience + appealing to the beginner audience of “we want everyone to play this game,” leads to a console that caters to the most able-bodied individuals. There was a time where I listened to a talk from a company’s Head of Design, where he discussed that the production of hardware is much more difficult to iterate on (obviously), as it takes time, materials, and is simply not as iteratively malleable as software can be. As a result, it’s almost natural that gaming industries would launch something primitively made for past audiences, and then consider accessibility and inclusivity afterwards.
“There is No Such Thing As Normal”
I had never thought about designers as a bell curve statistic before. I think the concept of an 80/20 rule was really interesting, because it did seem accurate to an extent. Often times, the 20% are what controls 80% of design decisions, simply because those are who is most available in the room to be assigning it.
Still, as the paper moved onwards, I’m glad that it addresses the perceived stigma towards who becomes of that “20%”. Because personally, I think that 20% varies with time. Maybe 40 or so years ago, many designs regarding space engines made woman part of the 20%, because very few of them were astronauts back in the day. Nowadays, they likely have broken out of that stigma, and the new 20% could be something else, such as those with vision impairments or hard of hearing. The design for gender neutral bathrooms has certianly evolved throughout the years, as the LGBTQ+ movements have grown stronger and more firm.
Over time, there will always be diffrent fights, and different acceptance levels for change. So the notion of a 20% minority is both superfluous and ever changing.
When will the ADA Evolve
I talk to Elise a lot about ADA guidelines, and how it seems like they’re not quite adapting to society the way they should be. So it was nice reading the article and looking into the history of legal battles ADA transparency causes. It reminded me of my inclusive beauty presentation, where Glossier was sued for claiming that they met ADA guidelines, when in fact the website did not.
What Can a Body Do: Sara Hendren
The average is the standard, but the body is not the average”
Hearing about how other places around the world work towards accessibile solutions feels more novel than it should be: The Green Man Plus card in Singapore is a really great example of that. I think what’s valuable to the idea is that it not only blends an existing product (a discounted transit card) to the problem space––adding easy integration––but it also pushes the notion that Singapore is an area that values seniors and pedestrian lifestyles. The Rolling Quads case study at the beginning of the article was really great in its own way, but it was also tangential to something almost political, with the individuals feeling like they had to fight for their accomodations. The Singapore example gave me a lot of insight of the changes I could think about as a designer, if I couldn’t experience life the way the Rolling Quads did. What are ways one could incorporate an everyday object to enhance an everyday practice, for those whose bodies are not the standard?
How can we design ‘for all’ with the constrictive persona
Persona building sometimes miffed me in UX-Design practices, because it seemed like a buzzword-style workshop to fit an arbitrary individual to the product space that we’re trying to pitch. So reading this article made it seem a lot more fulfilling. I especially like the statement “treating users themselves as personas is what has led to a wide misinterpretation in the field,” because that’s exactly how I felt about it all. I think that the 10 questions they listed, as well as proposing empathy as a form of “acting,” is really interesting. I’m a big fan of method acting, and I do want a better viewpoint on other people’s lifestyles that could potentially help design better solutions. It’s an interesting suggestion that makes me even consider design in a film/screenwriting sense, which I had never thought about before.
Persona Spectrums: Building for Inclusion and Accessibility
As I’m TA-ing the sophomores, it’s also occurring to me that a lot of the personas being built, both for them and myself back in the mini, are very one-dimensional from a lifestyle standpoint. Aside from the occasional financial-aid prospect student, many of the personas could afford to have more temporary or situational levels, and apply more constraints like the article suggests.
Moreover, this helps a lot of with designing for the physical world. When my mentor at my internship temporarily hurt his arm from pickle ball, he told me that his current experience showcases a “temporary disability,” and used that to explain how so many doors in the building were freaking hard to open, and really should be fixed. I’m glad that we’re discussing accessibility in this studio, since it broke me outside of the whole “color-contrast” and “screenreading” part of accessibility that UI/UX design always preaches about.
What if Accessibility was Also Inclusive?
https://catapult.co/stories/what-if-accessibility-was-also-inclusive-column-unquiet-mind-s-e-smith
It’s very easy for people to use the words Accessibility and Inclusivity interchangeably. I think that S.E. Smith provided good insight on how that isn’t always the case. Similar to what she stated, it’s simple to provide something as accommodating as a chair for pregnant woman. It’s established etiquette for someone to get up on their seat, nod to a woman with another child, and not question a thing. But for airports, there are indeed programs that are made for those with disabilities, but they feel much more marked. Is there a way for a service to be conducted for these individuals with disabilities in a way that doesn’t feel like it’s meant to be special treatment? I think moving forward, I would like to start thinking of design solutions that start bringing in that level of consideration––creating solutions that are less “things” and more “what”s. and “how”s.
From Day One to None: Patricia Moore
“With all this high-tech, we still want high-touch, and low-tech. And low-touch. And there’s nothing better than mommy’s hug and kiss on your forehead when you don’t feel well. It’s all about autonomy.”
This was a very powerful speech to me. It’s very easy for us to cast aside the older generation in our design decisions, and it’s even easier for us to “sterilize” our products, knowing that the seemingly ideal generation is knowledgable enough to navigate through it. People that say “design for all” often jump to externalities, rather than something as natural and constant as one’s grandfather. Companies separate demographics by age constantly, even more so than gender. The jab at Trump was funny.
