Ability Design

Towards a new paradigm for inclusive design in work situations

Johan Molenbroek, Wim Poelman, Michelle Williams

1.   General introduction

1.1.      Inclusive design

 Technology and design has always been an important means to enable people with a disability to play a role in society. Wheelchairs were invented a long time ago, as shown in Figure 1, however more recently changes in legislation and through the introduction of inclusive design, offices are becoming more adapted to people in wheelchairs by positioning everything low and creating enough room to manoeuver, see Figure 2.

Figure 1. Antique wheelchair

 Figure 2. Office with low shelves

 Inclusive design is best described as ‘The design of mainstream products and/or services that are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible ... without the need for special adaptation or specialised design.’ by The British Standards Institute (2005). Inclusive Design, in comparison to the idealistic ‘Universal Design’ and Design for all approaches, recognises that no design will work perfectly for everyone (Keates and Coleman 2013). There is a significant diversity in cognitive, perceptual and physical capability in the human population that changes over time. Where people should not be considered as having ‘able-bodiedness’, but instead as people having ‘variable capabilities’ that are ‘demanded by the product, service or environment’, according to Keates and Coleman 2013. American and European legislation has made a positive impact on the equal rights of people with disabilities; consequently the workplace environment is becoming more accessible and user friendly.

 1.2.      Ability Design

 Although nothing is wrong with adapting the environment of people to suit their diverse capabilities, one consequence is neglected. The person considered to have a disability is dependent upon his/her employer to make this adaption. An alternative approach, considered by the authors as a new paradigm to inclusive design, would be to provide the user with a well-designed solution rather than alter the environment.

Figure 3. Standup wheelchair (Tom Evers)

 Let us consider the example of the wheelchair. A student of the design academy in Eindhoven (Tom Evers) designed a wheelchair which enables a person to rise. His design was very sophisticated from both an ergonomic as well from a design point of view. It had virtual hinges that corresponded with the human joints and enabled a natural movement strategy of standing from a sitting posture, by positioning the feet under the centre of gravity in order to make standing up appear natural, Williams (2005). This wheelchair was naturally more expensive that a common wheelchair, however changing offices in a way that wheelchair users can reach everywhere they need is also costly. Furthermore there would be a loss of space, which is becoming a premium, considering only low cabinets within reach are possible.

If this investment is compared to the cost of changing the environment, with the added benefit of ‘enabling’ a wide range of people that experience difficulties in standing, this approach becomes a viable alternative. Especially if the cost of these technologically advanced products were reduced through, for example, open source design solutions from the ‘internet of things’ that would enable the person with the disability or their family members to make their own device, as discussed by Buehler et al (2015). Alternatively, the cost of the device could be recouped by reimbursement through health insurance. There is another significant issue of empowerment. This specific wheelchair gives the person independence from the company. Their job application can state: “Dear employer, you don’t have to adapt anything in the workplace to my situation. I solved the problem myself”.

 Still, it was impossible for designers, such as Tom Evers, to find a company interested in the production of his ‘stand up wheel chair’, even though it was designed thoughtfully with consideration towards the culture of offices. This ‘stand- up wheel chair was created 25 years ago and still the product is waiting for the opportunity to be produced. This chair is a good example of the general challenge. Ability design is not focused on the environment in which the people with the disabilities could work, but conversely upon the people with the disability themselves, to compensate their disability.

 What is considered as a disability? Peter-Paul Verbeek (2011) states: ‘when spectacles were not invented 60% of the Dutch population would be considered to have a disability’. No one would ask their employer to solve their visual problems. 

1.3.      Classification of disabilities

 An interesting proposition is that, in fact, all technological development is based upon the concept of ability design, i.e. the behaviour of the people. We could distinguish three categories of ability design:

-         Physical disabilities,

-         Perceptual disabilities

-         Psychological disabilities.

 Firstly, if we consider physical disability we can conclude that the human body is not able to cut trees and to move more than approximately one kilogram of sand without assistance. A hand axe was invented to solve the first physical inability and the shovel for the second one. Even today solutions are continually being developed to extend physical restrictions of the human body, such as cooling vests for sportsmen, to enable them to carry out a given task

 In respect of perceptual disabilities the technological developments started somewhat later. Spectacles, already mentioned, are to enable normal vision, but one could also include binoculars, loudspeakers and carbon monoxide sensors. Sensing technology is one of the most spectacular fields of research. Even a Global Positioning System (GPS) could be regarded as a solution for our inability to know where we are, compared to some birds that are able to locate themselves globally.

 We are currently in the middle of an era in which solutions for psychological disabilities are developed and applied. Sometimes we forget, but our agenda and address book are there to solve our disability to remember everything. Even our faulty processing power is also compensated by our calculators. The only problem is the interface with our brains, but, as shown in Figure 4, scientists are working on that too. In section 3 we will elaborate on these categories of disabilities.

Figure 4. Brain interface

 The conclusion that humans are in general creatures with disabilities could be drawn unless we define standards for ‘normal’ abilities, which is not easy.

2.   Toward a new paradigm for human technology

Providing technology to humans to improve their abilities to be accepted by society is a slow process. In different domains of society constraints vary. For example, in sports the acceptance of ability improving technology has improved as a result of the Paralympics. The “blades babe” Marlou van Rhijn, as shown in Figure 5, would normally be not considered fit for athletics. However, technology has compensated her disability completely. Similarly, tradesmen who are considered able bodied have compensated their limited height through the use of technology, which has now been commonly accepted in the workplace.

Figure 5. Marlou van Rhijn

Figure 6. Able bodied trades people using stilts designed to enable them to undertake their daily work tasks

This leads to an interesting question. Could technology also lead to a greater ability in the workplace? Philosophers like Peter Sloterdijk and Peter-Paul Verbeek undertook a great deal of research upon the role of technology in daily life. Many people regard technology as a threat to human beings, but these modern philosophers embrace technology. Their vision upon the role of technology could be regarded as a technological shift.  This vision does not regard technology as something mankind uses, but as an implicit part of a human being. Humans can be defined by their capabilities and technology should simply be regarded as an “extension of human capabilities”. Technology is purely serving. For example: One does not work with spectacles. Spectacles are part of the person and is one of the aspects which makes that person an individual. Clothing helps to regulate your body temperature, but it also helps to position yourself within your peer group. A bicycle helps you to move faster than walking and a diary helps to manage your time etcetera. The “blades” of Marlou Van Rhijn are part of the person Marlou van Rhijn. Why would we not intensify our efforts to employ technology to compensate people’s disabilities in a work context? We could even over compensate them so that they can be a highly successful carrying out their chosen goal like Marlou van Rhijn.

 3.    Solutions

3.1.   Physical disabilities

Within the group of physical disabilities several subgroups can be distinguished, for example people missing limbs, people with partial paralysis, people with spasms, etcetera.

Within the discipline of biomechanics a vast amount of effort has bene undertaken to compensate those deficiencies.

Arm prostheses are more and more available and the most spectacular developments are actuated prostheses which can be controlled by the still functioning muscle groups. Actuation can be realised by electric motors or pneumatics. Some developments are based upon direct control from the nerve system. This field of robotics can directly be applied to ability design. The possibilities of the combination of those two fields, robotics and ability design seem endless.

The difference between the context of the private daily life and work-context is striking. A Technical means to realise performance is judged differently in a working context in comparison with a private context. If a person were to wear welding goggles, for example in a supermarket, people would stare at them. The same applies to work clothes and some frequently used tools. In daily life, an artificial arm or leg is often required to look like the original as much as possible, as shown in Figure 7, however does the same requirement apply for work? Imagine that an artificial arm in industry would look exactly like a robot arm, as shown in Figure 8 and 9? Would it be accepted more easily in an industrial context than in daily life?

Figure 7. Artificial cosmetic arm

Figure 8. Tattooing with artificial arm

Figure 9. Industrial robot-arm

We could argue that a robot arm would be stigmatised in daily life but could gain respect from colleagues in a professional context. The employee could be, thanks to their artificial arm, much stronger than their colleagues.  Perhaps they could do a better job than their colleagues, due to the overcompensation of their disability?

 There is also another interesting approach. A person, considered ‘able-bodied’ may have all physical functions to their disposal. However, this does not necessarily mean that they require all of their physical attributes for the benefit of the employer. For example, in white collar tasks, legs are hardly useful, space is needed to stow them away under the desk. Of course this is a somewhat cynical joke, but there is some truth in it. There are many examples of jobs where people are not required to be able bodied. That’s the reason why teleworking is becoming popular. Even physical work can sometimes be done by people with few physical functions, for example, sorting apples. The operator simply looks at the apples on the conveyor belt, points at the bad ones and the robot removes them automatically.  Pointing can be performed through the use of the eyes alone, using eye tracing technology, which is already applied for using a keyboard by people whom are partly paralysed. .

 A cynical ergonomist argued that he would prefer someone without legs to operate a crane. A crane operator always looks down and his legs obscure his view, as shown in Figure 10. The ergonomist only wanted to explain that physical disabilities can have advantages. An interesting question is what you are paid for in a job. The things you can do or what you need to use in your work. No employee employs all his assets. The employer takes the assets which he does not need for granted.

Figure 10. Crane operator

3.2.   Perceptual deficiencies

Similarly with physical deficiencies, the compensation of perceptual deficiencies is developing fast, for example visual deficiencies and hearing deficiencies. Press releases with the introduction of new hearing “spectacles” are published almost weekly. These devices present an image of the environment by sound or even with tactile information, as shown in Figure 11 and 12.

Figure 11. Audio device for visually impaired

 Figure 12 .The 3D glasses used for ‘speech-seeing’ test

The developments for people with hearing deficiancies through augmented reality are promising. The system consists of a microphone, a computer with language recognition and a 3D device. Spoken text is projected in the spectacles above the head of the speaker. The appreciation of this device by people with hearing deficiencies after tests undertaken by the University of Leiden was positive. These special spectacles, used in virtual reality become less and less stigmatising.

The question of over compensation, i.e. Could the user of this system have an advantage over their colleagues?, could happen. The user could receive much more information than the non-user. Cameras could be integrated making face recognition possible, combined with tracing and tracking facilities for ‘wayfinding’. Scenarios such as  “Hey, congratulations on your birthday!” , “Amazing, how do you know that?” could be possible. It would not be necessary to have a computer with them, as they could see the minutes of a meeting everywhere.

3.3.   Psychological deficiencies

 The third category concerns people with psychological disabilities which might be congenital (e.g. down syndrome and autism) or traumatic (e.g. resulting from a stroke, or accident).

This category of deficiencies is the hardest to compensate. We cannot increase the intelligence or understanding of people. But, just like physical disabilities, physiological skills are not indispensable in every work situation. Skills which are often considered important are accuracy, empathy with others and a feeling of responsibility which someone with physiological disabilities, such as down syndrome shown in Figure 13, can achieve.

Figure 13. Down syndrome and information technology

 Modern technology could help here. 3D imaging, combined with artificial intelligence, could be able to detect a constraint in a procedure. Two possibilities could happen. A carer automatically receives a signal where assistance is required, or alternatively a software is activated to help the person through a procedure. This technology could be indicated as psychological assistance. It is essential however that the system does not have it’s own identity, but that it is part of the user as an individual. As a metaphor: the system can be regarded as psychological spectacles. It helps the user understand things better. He/she will become less dependent on carers who always have to be on stand-by and can obtain satisfaction by performing tasks which were too difficult without the technology.

Another example could be people suffering from autism that need working conditions with few external stimulants. Technology could realise these conditions with “noise cancelling” technology which is already applied in industry and aerospace.

4.   Conclusions

 This paper can be regarded as an initial attempt to discuss the issue of inclusive working conditions from another direction. The authors propose that technology can help to compensate deficiencies and even over compensate them. The Question is: Who should realise this goal? The advent of open source designs through the ‘internet of things’ can enable people with disabilities to generate their own solutions. Within the creative industry there are industrial designers, game designers, architects, web designers etc. This group of professionals share a skill called “design thinking”. Design thinking can be described as an interdisciplinary skill that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs, with a feasible technological and a viable business strategy, that can convert into customer value and market opportunity.

 References:

Poelman (2005) PhD Thesis: Technology Diffusion in Product Design, Delft Universitary Press, Delft

Frans de Waal(2009) Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us about Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press.

Peter Paul Verbeek (November 2011) Moralizing Technology, Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things, The University of Chicago Press

Ad Verbrugge  (2004) Tijd van onbehagen, filosofische essays over een cultuur op drift, Uitgeverij Sun

Erin Buehler1, Stacy Branham1, Abdullah Ali1, Jeremy Chang1, Megan Hofmann2 , Amy Hurst1, Shaun K. Kane3 Sharing is Caring: Assistive Technology Designs on Thingiverse

Williams (2005). A Methodology to enable design to create devices that enable natural human movement. PhD Thesis: University of Bath.

The British Standards Institute (2005).

 Clarkson J,*, Coleman R (2015) History of Inclusive Design in the UK P. Applied Ergonomics 46 (2015) 235e247

 Mascarenhas ,H (2016) https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/french-artist-gets-modified-prosthetic-arm-that-also-functions-tattoo-machine-1564887 June 11 2016