Relooking at Existing Frameworks

Hello all, welcome back to our course on digital accessibility. ility. Today we will look at some existing frameworks which exist in the design thinking process and we will try to reook at them from an accessibility and inclusive design process perspective. So I'm sure you are aware that selecting a target user group might be the very first step if you want to analyze a problem statement, you want to analyze a product success or failure, you want to identify user needs, then selecting a target user population is something which is considered one of the first steps. So we will try to understand and relook at some of the existing frameworks which exist in in this domain. What are used in the selection of target user groups and we will try to reook at the validity of those frameworks or models from the lens of inclusive design or diversification of usability. So I'm sure you all are aware of uh this kind of a curve. It's called a bell curve, right? And whenever we throw a random population on any parameter uh on a graph, usually it happens that most people fall in the 80% people fall in the plus minus sigma zone or which is what we call the significant difference zone and uh The average user basically what we say the average number of be height average um usage of uh number of hours they spend on a laptop or a phone or whatever right and then the uh the tail cases or are always smaller chunk of people right so bell curve is usually that and the if whatever the parameter is on the x-axis, there's always an average which falls under the majority. So there's something called an 8020 rule. So basically when we define who our who are our users whenever we want to serve a target population, design a product for them, design a use case for them. So while we are defining user groups, it is a commonly held tenate that by designing for the average person, we can serve most of the people, 80% of the market and that we need to focus on the average and avoid the edge cases because uh for efficiency and scale uh most of the time uh the these edge cases will have special needs. These edge cases will have special needs and in order to cater to those special needs the scalability of the solution might get affected. So when we say scalability maybe we are talking about mass production maybe we are talking of mass dissemination of some plug-in or some update or something right. So then whatever if something needs to be customized or tailored it is common understanding that u it will affect the scale and the efficiency of production or dissemination or manufacturing. Right? So it is always ideal to design or focus for the average person. However, what if I tell you that there is nothing called normal, right? So this this tenet of normal or average is itself a policy, right? And there are no edge cases really. It's just a diverse set of populations uh changing from one moment to the next. And some of our previously discussed definitions of temporary or situational disabilities kind of fit into this uh statement, right? So that people who we assume that uh have their abilities functioning at all times may not have all their abilities really uh applicable or functioning with 100% capa capacity at all times. There may be situational hindrances. There may be temporary hindrances. So uh there is actually no normal or average. And also in any of such graphs we are mostly focusing on one of the parameters. Whenever you plot something there will only be say one parameter which is plotted. And I think we've already discussed that any good user experience always looks at several parameters. We are looking at several aspects of usability, several aspects of human uh engagement, interaction, several senses, several modalities. So any one parameter would not be able to define several aspects as well. Maybe uh it will help you filter, it will help you refine your concept but not really uh define the target user group in the beginning itself. So what really inspired this the end of an average um story? So there's a very interesting story from World War II actually and uh so in the 1950s uh people in the US Air Force and um um in uh so they they measured around 4,000 pilots on 140 dimensions like anthropometric or bodily dimensions and they then calculated the average for each of these dimensions. So what was happening was there were several reported cases of uh plane crashes during the World War II and there were no uh reasonable justifiable causes which were being associated with those u crashes. So they were not really shot down but they were just crashing and people were dying because of it. So uh some of one of the questions that came was uh whether the cockpit is welld designed or can we look at those aspects of the cockpit. So basically what they did was they measured uh 4,000 pilots on 140 dimensions and then calculated the average of each of these 140 dimensions and used it to create the cockpit. Right? Because there may be several. Right? So like what is the width of the seat? What is the height of the ceiling above the because you need to optimize the space in a aircraft. So all of these dimensions the hand reach what needs to be near uh the pilot the the dimension of uh uh the handle the joystick all of those things uh need human dimensions. So this is what they did. So but one uh newly hired scientist uh in he his name was leftenant Gilbert Daniels he had doubts. So what he did he asked how many pilots were really fitting the average dimension. So what he what he did was he picked out 10 out of those 140 dimensions and checked if any of the pilots out of 4,000 fit all those exactly 10 dimensions. So out of these 4,63 pilots, not a single airman could fit all average dimensions. And what this clearly indicated was that there is no such thing as an average pilot and that if you designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you have actually designed it to fit no one really. And this was basically uh the end of average. And we also call it the average user policy. So what it means that when it comes to people there is no such thing as normal or average. So there's this is an image from another study which was trying to in which um the the designers or set of people were trying to design a chair something very simple a chair uh so which would be um you know comfortable for all of these 100 people. So they selected like 100 people original population. So when then they uh measured their height, their uh weight, their hip width and the knee height. So knee height means the from ground to the knee what is the height? So the average height only these many people could pass or fit. Average height and weight of two dimensions only these many people nine people. Then all uh average height, weight and hip width only four people could fit and all the four dimensions only one person could fit. So any chair which is designed with an average of all of these is only meant for this one person and not the other 99 people. So when we are designing so if we think about that normal curve again we feel that if we design for the average at least we will be able to serve the 80% people and only be leaving out the 20% people. But based on these two stories and case studies, we can clearly see that if we rely on the average average dimensions, average parameters, we are not definitely not catering to the 80% at all. And that we need uh to think about look at different types of methods to of customization different types of methods to cater to wider set of audience and do not look at average as any sort of indication at all. So basically if you're designing we're actually not designing for the entirety of the population. So the idea is to know your users well enough to avoid the ideal customer trap. So in order to know your users even better, we will uh in the later part of this session, we will talk about um identifi we will talk about relooking at need identification and what are the tools and methodologies we can employ in order to know our users even better. Keep conversing with them or observe them. There are methods to even include them in the process. So there is a process called participatory design which is very popular particularly with assisted technology and accessible uh product design where participants themselves are part of the design team. They are invited to be part of the design team engage with the team uh for a longer duration. Otherwise we end up developing for the average which is hardly anyone. So as I said we'll try to now look at uh need identification. Need identification also is something I'm sure you all are aware that is an integral part of the design thinking process where it is also again uh one of the initial steps and uh in the five-step process it is called empathize uh so if you want to understand from that so um how we can empathize with our users is of course focus on gaining deeper understanding of their needs, emotions, their behaviors in order to develop meaningful solutions. How we can do that? There are several uh tools for it. We will have a discussion about it. Um this step also encourages you to set your assumptions aside. So I think we have already um discussed and we will relook at it uh how we can how we tend to fall into uh the ability bias but how we can try to stay away from it as well is something which we will discuss. So this is one of the examples we which we have discussed in one of the previous sessions. I would like to revisit it just so that you u maybe give it another think that okay if I want to design um a fire exit um who are the possible users what are their needs what is the possible solution and say if this is the possible solution what are the assumptions it makes what are the assumptions so have a think about it And as we saw that this handlebar placed at a certain height is assuming that uh the my users are of a certain height plus they are able to stand erect and which may not be the case in case of a fire or if people uh with disability come try to open the gate or if children who are lower in height try to open the gate. So basically when we design uh something we establish some abilities uh of a potential user and this itself is called ability bias because we assume that all of those abilities are fully enabled at all times. And this this potentially um makes us ignore much of the range of humanity. So we should try to shy away from this mindset in order to include more people. It is always more relevant to design for the smallest, weakest or tallest. So now here what we're trying to say is it's quite the opposite of the average um uh user mindset where we were saying that if you design for the middle part you will be able to serve more people. We are saying actually no design for the edge cases design for the smallest design for the weakest design for the tallest. So if you are able to serve fifth percentile or 95th percentile people the average people the 50th percentile automatically gets access and this can be directly extended to other sensory disabilities or uh sensory hindrances or cognitive hindrances as well. So designing to include extreme users can benefit the great majority of users. So if we reook at the design of the emergency gate. So for example now we what we have just it's a small tweak and uh so we have added lights uh at the bottom as well not just on the top as signifier where it says fire exit. There is also bottom light because there is a chance that it gets hindered by uh the smoke in case of a fire. It's well lit. The gate itself signifies its position. The handle is also lit. It's also vertical so that many people of different heights can also use uh people at different levels can use and also uh it's something which cannot be depicted in the images. the mechanisms can enable little strength uh to be required to open the gate. Other examples I think we have uh had a discussion about it that there may be cases or situations where uh people are not able to use their abilities to the fullest because of situational hindrances. So for example, we all have experienced this when we want to see something on a on our phone in broad daylight but we are unable to see the screen uh or when we have to do household chores with one hand if we have a cast or things. So something uh so this is something what we called situational limitation and this is something what we call temporary limitation. So now this is something of uh great importance. Uh this is called the Maslo's hierarchy of needs. So this is um also something which will help you. So we are saying that understand user needs understand try to understand their uh aspirations what is motivating them and this and that. So but how to define them and maybe you okay after an interview you were able to um you know collect data and uh you were able to make a list of needs but then again uh when you come down to making the solution itself there may be scenarios when you are unable to decide which one to prioritize which one to um solve first or which needs to be mandatorily ly uh done and which one is good to have or which aspects of the design caters to which aspects right so this uh master's hierarchy of needs will help you understand that so let us talk about this a little bit um so all kinds of human needs are uh defined or divided in these five uh steps of uh the hierarchy Okay. So the first and the foundational step is the physiological needs. Physiological needs uh can be related to nutrition that people are getting food to eat, water, quality air to breathe, sleep, shelter, clothing or temperature control, reproduction related, health related aspects. Right? So basically anything that fall falls under the basic human need which is uh something which is needed to survive if that caters to a functionality then uh that should be looked at very first in the very beginning as the bare minimum functionality. The second uh in the step is safety needs. So aspects like security, stability, predictability, protection, freedom from fear, structure, order, law, limits. All of those fall under the category of safety needs. Then next is social needs. So uh the emotional aspects like giving and receiving affection, intimacy, uh love, belong, sense of belongingness in the society all of those fall under social needs. Then there is esteem needs. So esteem relates to positive self evaluation, dignity, reputation, independence. So we've been talking about these aspects in accessibility also right that it it enables independent access. It enables people to feel belong or belonging to the social fabric itself. It allows them to feel uh fearless. Gives them freedom to manipulate. So all of those things we've been talking about so far also and this this gives uh just a structure for you to kind of uh prioritize the needs. Then on the top is the selfactualization uh needs where an individual's aspects or aspirations related to growth um exploration morality beauty all of those aesthetics come into picture. So let's try to put it in perspective of a user experience design version right. So if we if you're talking about a website or if you're talking about an application or if you're talking about an interaction uh interactive interface then um the functionality of it that the interface works properly doesn't break down the basic aspects of um whether um the the buttons are locatable or not whether the website is opening or not. All of those basic things fall under the category of functionality. The workflow, the it it it's it's basically that it's not fall falling apart every now and then. Then the second layer is information that the interface is correct, it's readable, the the uh the content is up to date. Um then in this uh in this section there may be security issues as well which are looked at it is safe to use. Right? Then after that we also need to look at the uniqueness, the professional aspect which also builds trust right the aesthetic, the beauty aspect which appeals to your innate uh senses then only probably. So for example just if we think about there may be for one problem there may be 10 different apps but what makes it appeal what one makes one appeal more than the other is probably understanding and understanding of all of these uh categories and how they are catering to different human needs. Then the top is the usability. So basically it allows you to complete tasks quickly and accurately. So quickly is also ease. It's also independence. You don't need to ask people. Accurately is um there is little room for error. Right? So all of those aspects come here. So what we're trying to say through all of these uh Maslo's hierarchy of needs or um you know the empathize uh phase and relooking at need identification is something is very important which is human centric approach. We want to put people at the center and um then look at our uh aspects various aspects of the um problem statement. So empathy is an important part of many different forms of design and learning how people adapt to the world around them means spending time to understand experiences their experiences from their perspective. So this is very important. Recognize more than just their the barriers that people encounter. recognize the motivations as well, right? Because as we saw in the Maslo's hierarchy of need, motivation is at the top, right? Barriers cater to functionality. It is also important. But having an understanding of the motivations and aspirations will also help you understand what differentiates your product from the other products which are only looking at the functionality. Probably then you have to try to convert your observations into insights. Right? So we can so there are different tools which we can try to employ. We can imagine how a person with a given set of abilities would use an experience. We can try to role play. We can try to imitate how they would use. We can try to uh use the application with hindered abilities. But we cannot imagine uh the the emotional con context that they they face what gives them joy or what frustrates them. So this aspect we will um in some of the later sessions we will also look at some case studies where uh you know the the designers um they did their role play they did their basic research and they tried to step into the feet of the users. But um the emotional context as it said here that what the joy that a person who was for example so far not able to navigate independently was suddenly able to do it without any help. So as again as said in that Maslo's hierarchy all of this goes back to that Maslo's hierarchy of needs because it's uh it's developed from a core psychological perspective. It's something that people become became very joyous because they were able to do it without any assistance for the first time all by themselves. So I'm sure all of you might have experienced some or the other moment in your life where there was it was the first time you were able to do something by yourself. Maybe it's driving a car for the first time alone after learning it for several months without the instructor, without your father, without your mother, without your elder brother and just by just you taking the car out. So that that joy of um doing something independently is something which is the emotional context and which is something that probably uh even the designers when they try to do it uh through roleplay exercises or etc. they will not be able to understand the or imitate the emotional joy or the frustration that they were facing so long. So that eventually when they got the right solution what would be that emotional joy. So it is very important to understand that and that is why um we need to understand how people adapt in different situations. Right? So in order to develop an understanding of it there is something called an empathy mapping. It is a very important tool which is utilized uh in the empathize phase in the design thinking process. Uh so in this we try to you know talk to potential users and we just like write what you think and feel about the situation. What do you see? What do you hear? What do you say and do? Uh what are the pain? What are the gains? But we are also uh basically through this process we're also able to understand what they are feeling. So for example the thing can feel uh gives you an understanding of the emotions of the users. Emotions of the users the say and do is something what we are saying adaptations. how they are working around the existing frameworks and processes in order to get the job done. Then uh the frustrations in the pain and the aspirations in the gain. So this is an example of a filled empathy map. We can also uh think of scenarios, ability biases, focusing on special abilities when we are building a persona and uh as discussed earlier uh the persona can occur in a spectrum. We can have a three different personas in order to understand the permanent, the temporary and the situational aspects of hindrances. So there can be several tools to overcome ability bias as we said that primary user interviews or shadowing following people and observing how they are adapting how they are interacting with the existing uh systems can give a lot of insights. The secondary research can be referring to existing data or reverse engineering some of the existing products. Role play is definitely something of uh quite interesting use. It can be sometimes very interesting to put yourself in the shoes of uh special uh needs population. Helps you understand a disability a little bit better. But this is not foolproof as we discussed earlier. It doesn't it definitely may help you uh learn more about uh barriers or hindrances but probably it will not give you insights about the aspirations the frustrations the emotional aspects for that probably interviewing and empathy mapping are the most important tools. So to summarize uh we tried to look reook at need identification. We tried to reook at target user group selection. We also discussed uh some very important aspects and tools related to empathizing. We also tried to understand how to prioritize those needs when we have identified them using the Maslo's hierarchy of needs. And we also discussed about human- centered approach and tools. We we tried to understand what is the meaning of average user policy uh as well as some other terms such as uh empathy mapping, persona building etc. So I will see you in the next session. Thank you for joining.