Three Dimensions of Inclusive Design

Hello all, welcome back to our course on digital accessibility. ility. Today we will discuss about the inclusive design thinking process and there are three dimensions uh to this process which we will try to understand. So basically inclusive design process is all about um thinking in a different manner and trying to incorporate those thought processes in your design approach. So the first principle or first dimension of inclusive design is to recognize inclusion. How we can do that? Recognizing how design biases and decisions result in exclusion. So we have had a discussion in previous sessions about what accounts for biases. how uh what are the different reasons uh biases can come into picture. It may be the the commonly perceived rule of the average. It may be ability biases. It may be assumption based designs. It may be non-empathetic um start of a design process. So all of these um aspects we should try to curb and recognize how design biases and design decisions result in exclusion. So we should try to analyze the root cause of a person's exclusion and we have discussed some of the tools which can help us in doing that. Empathy mapping can be one of them. uh putting u uh the aspects of a person's need on a person uh disability spectrum can another uh way can be another way of doing that. Um and um putting the needs, the aspirations, the frustrations uh of the uh users um in order to understand the root cause of why they are feeling um excluded from the system is something which can help us recognize exclusion. Then uh there is this term which we would like to discuss which is mismatched human interactions. We have had a short discussion about it. We will try to dive into it a little bit more. And this is also part of the first step of inclusive design thinking process. Uh that we should address the mismatched human interactions and the points of mismatches, the points of exclusion, they help us generate new ideas and inclusive designs. So what are mismatch of interactions? So basically disability or hindrance occurs when there are um mismatched in interactions. What we mean by mismatch? The term mismatch is that say for example there is an intended purpose of a feature in in your application or on your product. Assume and some assumptions have been made that the user will be able to utilize this feature or use this functionality in this way. Right? But for example the user again we are making an assumption that the user has that ability to interact with that feature of the product in that assumed way at all times. So but uh there may be situations where the user is not able to interact with it. The situation may be a permanent hindrance which is what we are calling a permanent disability. uh the situation may be a temporary hindrance which we were calling temporary disability. The situation may be because of external factors or situational disability and because of some of these reasons they are not able to interact with uh the feature of the product. So uh let us try to understand this aspect through a very simple commonly used example. So as designers it is our role to understand uh those aspects of mismatch and inquire how our design affects interactions and create mismatches. We have to acknowledge mismatches and take appropriate design decisions so that minimal number of mismatches or no mismatches really happen. Right? So in order to understand what a mismatch would really mean, let us look at this common example of a automatic soap dispenser. I'm sure you all might have interacted with this u this product at some point in your life. And uh so what is the purpose? That purpose is that there is a sensor and uh as soon as you uh put your hand underneath the sensor is able to detect uh the pos that there is some object uh in present and it dispenses some amount of liquid soap. So uh but in cases where say for example the what are the assumptions that the designer has made so that this feature can be utilized. So it also depends on where what is the position of this soap dispenser, how high it is placed on the wall, whether there is a space in front of the soap dispenser to really approach the product and uh put your extend your hand in front of it. So all of those aspects if they're not there you are assuming that the user will somehow reach uh the machine and they will be able to dispense. So all of those things also need to be looked at. The other and probably those are not part of the product designer's design decision but also uh you know uh other stakeholders like people who are installing the system on the wall people maybe the architect maybe the electrician maybe all of the other people who are putting or cleaning the system right so or to refill it when it is empty otherwise if there is no soap to dispense how will it dispense So other than that from a users's perspective uh the reach the approach all of that is important and then also there may be some other um um you know limitations. So for example in case of a dark um um you know background. So for example the light is not there um the it is quite dark. Will it be able to uh sense the presence of an object? If it is an IR sensor, which is a light based sensor, will it be able to sense it? If it is a proximity sensor, which is sensing the distance between uh something which is close to uh the sensor, then probably it'll be able to sense, right? So, uh all of these aspects. So, what are the abilities we are assuming? So there may be cases where these abilities are not really functioning or available at all where those mismatches can happen. So we as designers have to try to minimize these mismatches. Similarly, uh such situations like um short-term injury can affect the usage of such a product or other uh digital products uh like a mobile phone or a laptop. So I think we have discussed this example and this is a very relevant example that is why it is uh kind of recurring in the session. So think about looking into a bright light or you know wearing a car. So you have this temporary uh reason because of which the hindrance is occurring because of which a mismatch is occurring because of which your ability is not functioning at its best right or it's not functioning the way it is expected to or assumed to be functioning. So I think as designers we have to be sensitive about these aspects and this is the first step of the inclusive design thinking process that recognizing that these are the scenarios in which an exclusion can happen. These are the things which when we are designing the product we have to think about them otherwise an exclusion can happen. Similarly, situational disabilities which we have uh discussed that the due to external environmental factors the abilities may change right. So maybe because of the loud crowd your audio feedback is not audible anymore or sometimes because u a parent a new parent is holding a child they are forced to do uh interact with your machine or your product with only one hand while you have assumed that the uh product will be used using both hands Or there may be just a sensory overload and you are not your cognitive functioning is hampered or is not at its best. So the workload or the work uh workflow task of even ordering a basic uh object or a basic product. The number of steps can cause a sensory overload as well. Right? which you may think that okay otherwise it is assumed that it is okay to deal with so many steps. So, I'm sure you might have experienced this also that if you've had a long overwhelming day, if somebody asks you at the end of the day at say 11:30 p.m. at night, keep uh fill this form which has like 10 steps to it which requires your Aadhaar number, your account number, your this you have to cross-check everything and all of that. uh it becomes really hard to uh do it uh if you have already had an overwhelming day. So this moving to the second principle of inclusive design which is learn from diversity. So now that we have recognized that there are other um aspects of the design thinking process itself which can cause exclusion and it is not just the uh responsibility or the onus is not just on the user themselves but also on us as designers. That was the first step and now we would like to um analyze or learn from how different kinds of people behave. So basically we are trying to learn from diverse human adaptations and behavioral patterns which can help us taking appropriate design decisions so as to minimize exclusion. So of course in order to learn from diversity we first have to acknowledge diversity that um there are um you know diverse set of people and there is differences in user populations be it anthropometric differences be it cultural differences be it con context dependent differences be it ability related differences be it cognitive differences um IQ related differenc differences uh so or you know cultural differences. So uh it is always helpful that uh if your design team itself is a diverse comprises of a diverse set of people they would be able to put various perspectives on the table while those design decisions are being taken. The other way I think we have mentioned it slight uh fleetingly before u in one of the sessions is something called as participatory design where uh where a person with some particular kind of limitation is also part of your design team. So they can participatory design methodology where when we are creating the diverse design team, we have somebody or an actual representative or an actual user with uh maybe a type of permanent hindrance or a disability. So they can put those um emotional the uh uh context, the aspirational context as well as the uh accessibility and usability related frustrations which they uh face uh on the table and that can help a design team also understand what ways the existing the state-of-the-art the existing technologies have been um kind of excluding their needs and how a better design can be created. The other aspect in which we can learn from diversity is human beings behavior itself. So human beings are in general the real experts in adapting to diverse situations. Right? So um I'm sure you all might have uh you know heard about the term jar right and then uh so how we uh in our dayto-day uh adapt and get the work done despite the hindrances despite those mismatches despite those uh uh mismatched uh abilities and uh uh expectations we will get through our day somehow, right? So, but what are those adaptive measures that humans themselves take? So, one way of actually learning it is again through participatory design getting their viewpoint. The other very useful method in particularly to um learn from the adaptive behavior is something which is called shadowing. So where you are just quietly following and observing the person interact with the either your proposed technology or some existing technology or they're just maneuvering going about with their day in the context of the problem then you can kind of try to understand how they are adapting. So this is a very interesting example of how all of us uh you know adapt in an everyday situation. Uh so I'm sure you all might have u uh you know struggled to put a two pin plug in a three pin socket right because of that safety guard. So what do we do? What is the jard that we all do? I'm sure everyone might have done it right. So when experiences don't serve people that they the way they should people adapt they think of some jugard but get it done and it's in done in astonishing ways which can uh um you know the designers never thought that it would happen but this uh the users they do it right so I'm sure all of us have really used you know stuck that pen pencil uh in the earth hole and uh get through our um get through our work because then the two pin uh plug can be plugged inside. Other ways of course is that say if I am holding a coffee in my hand as well as a newspaper how do I open the door right? So I mean all of those aspects and how do you do it? You use your elbow and try to get in in some way. So the idea is again coming from the same point that in order to learn from users or learn how they adapt, learn from their behavior, learn from the diverse ways they interact with the environment. We have to put people at center. We have to have empathy uh which is an important form uh of the design thinking process itself. We have discussed this uh in one of the previous sessions and the the tools that we discussed under this section uh of of PE putting people at center can help you in this uh second step. So we need to recognize more than just the physical barriers or the interaction related barriers which is more physiological. Uh I think we also had a discussion about the mass loss hierarchy needs. So the interaction related or physiological barriers is at the bottom of the triangle. Remember that needs to be studied that needs to be addressed definitely but we should also try to recognize the motivations the aspirations the frustrations of the users as well in order to create more accessible and more enriching experiences. So one way of doing it is uh we have discussed this that uh empathy mapping how to fill this uh you have to think about uh you have to interview them and maybe fill this based on their responses. What do they think and feel? What do they see in the context? What do they hear? What do they say and do? So the think and feel can tell you about the emotions. What do they say and do? Can tell you about the adaptations. Uh the frustrations can come from the pain and aspirations will come from the gain what they wish to gain from this uh product. This is just an example of a filled empathy map. You can also try to do this exercise uh when you are working on your product. You can also think of scenarios, different scenarios, different kinds of abilities uh and different kinds of special abilities when you are creating a persona and that would help you come to three personas maybe. So one is a permanent disability kind of a persona. The other can be a temporary disability kind of a persona and the third can be a situational uh disability kind of a persona. The third principle now coming to the third step or the third principle of inclusive design thinking is to solve for one but extend to many. Right? So this also aligns with um the universal design thinking u the universal design principles that we had uh discussed in one of the previous sessions. So we can use those principles as a set of guidelines when we are trying to extend to many. Uh but we also need to understand that the sol the problem solving um you know can be we we can start looking at it as a individual problem but we have to extend to many by diversifying its usability d by diversifying its access. So we'll discuss how we can do that. So first is offering choices right choices not just in terms of um the opportunities uh of products the options in terms of colors or all of that but also in terms of interaction right so how different people uh interact with the device in similar circumstances or vice versa how similar people interact with different circumstances. Right? So that would help you understand when we are designing the solution a single solution may not be able to accommodate all users. So offering choice in terms of choices either in terms of different solutions or choices in terms of different ways of interaction. So as everyone experiences exclusion as they interact with our designs. So this is an example of what we can do to offer choices. So for example, if the problem statement is I want to go to second floor. So I want to go to the second floor. That is my problem statement. And these are the different ways or choices which I have uh to choose from. All of these are solving the problems. All of these can be useful uh beneficial in their own ways. Right? So depending on my ability, depending on my situation, I can choose which one to take in order to go to the next floor. So when when we are diversifying uh for more users, it is definitely that more people can benefit. So one may say that okay if you're able to install say uh an elevator what is the need for um uh for an for a staircase for example but it's definitely needed one is of course in case of an emergency uh staircases are required but there may be people who are able to walk and they want to use the staircase intentionally they want to you know exercise they want to reduce weight, they want to be active uh when they are um you know roaming about in their office or whatever. So all of those things need to be thought about. So designing for people with permanent disabilities by itself. So if we just look at this part of the spectrum, it may be a little bit of a significant constraint but the resulting design. So for example, we designed something which can work for one arm user which we which a person with only one hand can operate. It automatically benefits a person who has an arm injury or who is a new parent who's holding a kid in one hand. Right? So, and the important part is that um uh and the important part uh the important part here is that people with permanent disabilities may be in some thousands of numbers. People with temporary disabilities can be around few millions. people with situational difficulties can be around another few millions. So if your solution can work for all of these, you're looking at a much bigger number of customers or users potential users as compared to only uh people who are permanently disabled or the traditional definition of disability. So it is not it is also an economic benefit for the organization. it's not really uh you know just a pro bono act. So the as we spoke that designing for um situations with which have constraints may be a little bit difficult but definitely it is more um the resulting designs can actually benefit more people. The resulting experiences can be much more enriching. The resulting u um uh products can be used by a larger chunk of people. Hence the profitability profitability can also go up. So for example, uh close captioning was created for the hard of hearing community. But there are many benefits of close captioning such as reading in a crowded airport uh or teaching children how to read. Constraints help us design better. So there are many such examples that for example the high contrast screens were initially made to benefit people with vision impairment but we today cannot imagine our laptops with without high contrast settings because we may want to sit outside and work. Similarly, remote controlled automatic doors, remote controls, email, all of these popular products were initially made as assistive products but they are very commonly adopted in all user experience as well. So it is um definitely what we talking about extending the use case to more people is always beneficial. So to summarize uh today's session uh we spoke about the three dimensions of inclusive design which are more um more of a process. So basically uh how we can get started with the inclusive design thinking process. The first step is to recognize exclusion. What are the different methods? What are the different aspects of mismatch of ability biases of all of these aspects which can contribute to design decisions that can lead to exclusion. The second dimension was to learn from diversity. Not just looking at how people uh are getting excluded but also how people are getting the job done, how they are adapting to the situation can help us understand and design better solutions which can help them um interact with our product in a much better way. We can also involve people with different uh hindrances or disabilities in our teams. Our teams can be more diverse in order to get perspective from a variety of use cases, users uh on the problem statement. So that is something which contributed to the learn from diversity step. The third dimension is solve for one and extend to many. So what we have to do is we have to solve not just for people who are permanent uhly disabled but also we are trying to extend it to much wider audience when we are looking at temporary and situational disabilities. So all of our products all of these aspects are kind of interlin with each other. Some of the tools also kind of overlap and uh for each of these uh dimensions. But all in all, if we incorporate this in our design thinking or product development aspect, the resultant solution can definitely be much more inclusive in its overall up in its overall interaction uh as compared to uh an more of an exclusionary product or a specialized product. So that is it for today. Thank you for uh interacting. See you in the next session.