An exploration of Inclusive Design, and a determination of its efficacy.

“There’s nothing that does so much harm as good intentions”

- Milton Friedman

The question of human existence has severely warped public intellectuals for a long time. Meaning and purpose or lack thereof, is by no means a simple interpretation — in the minds of the intellectual. One, who economists like Thomas Sowell would describe as individuals whose occupations start and end with ideas that ‘they’ do not manifest in the real world (Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell, 2010). This is not a new phenomenon, as we see Ancient Greek philosophers partaking in intellectual inquiries of the highest echelons. The antithesis of which, however, I believe has a longer history, and quite possibly deems the work of these ‘intellectuals’ futile in the eyes of the layman. Over 2.6 million years ago, a group of individuals in East Africa transcended towards the utilization of hand-crafted tools. Oblivious to its consequences, in the process of problem determination and the generation of value through the simple act of design, early humans from the paleolithic period brought meaning to our lives, through determining problems and striving to make our lives much more efficient. Fast forward a couple of million years, mere vague consideration will apprise that we are not significantly different from our predecessors. The meaning in lives of the layman, not as determined by the nihilist or pious worldviews, constantly revolves around solving problems. It is just the complexity of those problems that differ.

While many believe that the emergence of Industrial Design and the Industrial Revolution are connected, the roots of it can be traced back to the initial development of stone tools. A need necessitated specialized crafting and problem solving, which was the impetus for its existence. It was not until 1919 that the term was first used by Joseph Claude Sinel that ‘Industrial Design’ as a field was popularized and formalized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Claude_Sinel). Since its informal roots reaching the Paleolithic period, the backbone of designing products boiled down to a rudimentary premise: forming valuable products that humans could meaningfully utilize, which would not otherwise exist in nature. This postulation was only exacerbated by the introduction of mass manufacturing in the 1910s, as vast swaths of the global population bore the fruits of meaningful design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production).

The story of design, and the thirst for solving problems that have infinitesimally improved our lives, is a fascinating one. A journey that began with primitive tools, is an extremely fine-tuned process today. This is a remarkable peregrination and one that must be admired. However, it is ever-more concerning that the designer of today does not take a step back and appreciate it.

This lack of appreciation is quite possibly why the drive and proliferation of terms like Inclusive and Universal Design have been imminent in the design community. This is quite perplexing, because oftentimes, I have unanswered questions about the field every time I am informed, quite passionately, of its ascendancy. What exactly, in objective terms with calculable metrics, is inclusivity? Is it just the plinth of morality that design must attain or is it something else entirely? Is it even practical to design products for a spectrum of users? These questions, in my personal experience, have been greeted with arguments that I have not found persuasive. This is one of the reasons why I deemed it to be essential on my part, to do my due diligence and try to understand the field and its proponents. I would opine, and I could be completely inaccurate, that the reluctance to criticize ‘Inclusive Design’, stems from the moral proclivity of the term ‘inclusive’, and its positive social associations. Intentional or not, this is quite scandalous at its face.

Therefore, in this particular article, I am not here to talk about ‘Inclusivity’ in any social manner, but rather only its association in the world of design.I will attempt to understand the idea of inclusive design, see where it comes from, and examine it objectively. Keep in mind that this piece is not an attack on the principles of Universal Design, but merely an exploration.

What is Universal/Inclusive Design?

My introduction to the principles of Universal Design is possibly similar to most designers out there. The story of Ronald Mace, and his undeniable contributions to the field of design as the pioneer of Universal Design.

Born in 1941 in Jersey City, New Jersey; Ronald Mace was the youngest of two children. At the age of nine, his life would take a turn for the worse. Mace contracted polio, which put him in a hospital for over a year. He was rendered immobile, unable to walk on his feet for the rest of his life. Mace went on to learn Architecture, Mace spent his life as — not just a designer — but an advocate for accessibility in design. His instrumental work in this field led to federal legislation prohibiting disability discrimination, including the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ronald-L-Mace). He was known as the pioneer of designing for disabilities. His life is the living embodiment of the Soothsayer’s quote from Kung Fu Panda 2, “Your story may not have a happy beginning, but that doesn’t make you who you are. It is the rest of your story, who you choose to be.”

It is he who coined and popularized the term Universal Design in the 1980s. Mace observed that the design solutions for people with physical impairments often worked extensively well for regular people. The inadequate-looking addition of curbs on the sidewalk is an uncomplicated case. Initially appended to help people on wheelchairs navigate sidewalks effortlessly, numerous segments of society took advantage of this extension. Mums with strollers, bikers, and people with luggage are just some of the few that ordinarily make use of these curbs. This got him thinking about the notion of designing all products and environments — not merely from an aesthetic point of view — but more importantly from a scalability perspective. One that is usable to the furthest extents possible, regardless of membership within any societal category.

As the years moved on UD morphed itself into ‘Inclusive design’, however, his premise lived unscathed. The ideal outcome of design must mean that the furthest sections of society found the product usable. The British Standards Institute (2005) defines inclusive design 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 specialized design.’ (http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/whatis/whatis.html#:~:text=Back%20to%20top-,Definition%20of%20inclusive%20design,people%20as%20reasonably%20possible%20...&text=Ensuring%20that%20each%20individual%20product%20has%20clear%20and%20distinct%20target%20users.)

Simply explained, according to the tenets of Universal Design, in the hierarchy of users, designers must aim at reaching the top of that pyramid — which would include the extreme users among society.

The first question to answer is why? Why is it in the best interest of the business, the designer, and the market to ensure that products are designed — taking into consideration the extremes? In the piece titled, ‘7 Business Benefits of Inclusive Design’, Konrad Marzec lays out his case. (https://medium.com/indeed-design/7-business-benefits-of-inclusive-design-7d3132bbc03a)

A myriad of interesting points are explained. The ability to reach a broader market, improve team motivation, spark innovation and make a positive social impact are just some of the few points in favor of promoting the proliferation of Inclusive design.

This argument is further laid out by Kat Holmes in the book Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design.

“A design that works well for someone with one arm can also benefit someone with a broken elbow, or a new parent cradling an infant. Ultimately, we all experience exclusion in our lives. Places where we don’t fit. Mismatches between us and a product or environment. Even if it’s temporary, situational, or simply the progression of aging, we each face barriers to participating as we move through the world.” (Kat Holmes, Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design, 2018)

The case made is inarguably quite compelling. The notion that ‘reaching for the extremes’ has business benefits, and extraneous circumstantial use cases for even the plurality users is enthralling. I felt so too when I was introduced to the idea that a design strategy could be so fantastical and exquisite that it can act as a solution for the farthest users in the spectrum. However, even as an 18-year-old (legally an adult, but mentally still a naive kid), I can recognize that there is NOTHING on planet earth that can allow us to pave a path to the ‘Utopian’ vision of the world. The overly-optimistic sense of vision that many designers have concerning inclusive design was an immediate put-off, and a driver of major skepticism, which immediately led me to start thinking about this conundrum. I had one pressing question that needed to be answered, “what’s going on here?”

Laying out a framework of understanding ‘exclusionary design’

My exploration of inclusive design, and answering the critical question began with trying to lay out a framework of discerning the antithesis of inclusive design; exclusionary design. What exactly is exclusionary design? My preliminary research makes it clear that the term is quite unclearly defined, and is often relegated to ‘hostile architecture’ (more on it later). This was my second major red flag (after the off-putting, overly optimistic nature of the inclusive design hypothesis). The lack of ‘particulars’ and excessive over-generalizations of principles was the first thing I noticed, and something I am stringently against. How do I know if a product is exclusionary? Is there a limiting principle, i.e, what is the farthest extent to which a designer must go? All these questions needed answering, for which I had to try and lay out all the reasons why a product may be “exclusionary”. Upon examining its intricacies, exclusionary design (ED) can be categorized as belonging to three distinct sects. (Categorization was inspired by Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities, 2018)

1. Exclusionary Design I: This could also be termed as intentionally exclusionary design. The application of design principles is meant to specifically exclude a section of society from making use of the product. This can further be split into two subcategories for a clearer understanding.
2. ED Ia — Products and environments designed prejudicially, specifically to ensure a group of people would not be able to make use of the products/services. This could be exemplified by the architect Robert Moses, who allegedly lowered bridge overheads to ensure that members of minority communities — who most often commuted in buses — would have it harder to travel. If true, this is an intentional, and prejudicial design decision.
3. ED Ib — Products and environments designed to ensure people do not use the products and services, often to ensure public safety and cleanliness. This could be exemplified with the rise in “hostile” architecture, which is meant to prevent people from occupying public spaces and to deter skateboarding, littering, loitering, and public urination — all of which could hinder the lives of average citizens.
4. Exclusionary Design II: This could also be termed as unique designs, i.e., products and services that are made specifically to serve a niche user base. This would include products like luxury watches, exclusive merchandise, etc. These products are one-of-a-kind and are highly centered towards a small group of people, and hence, as a principle is actively excluding a vast proportion of the users.
5. Exclusionary Design III: These are products and environments that are designed — taking into consideration the average general population. However, purely coincidentally and as a matter of unintended consequence, a few groups of people are unable to use the product. These are generally what we see in our everyday interactions, that one may not notice as exclusionary. Laptops are not made for those visually impaired, public signs are harder to read when in an unknown language, etc.

Having laid out this framework, it becomes much easier to determine aspects of contention by the proponents of UD. ED1a is the easiest one to recognize as reprehensible. Any design that is made with prejudicial intentions can be marked as something every sane designer should condemn. ED1b is quite controversial, with many designers being against it, and many public policy experts being for it. I am personally torn because it seems too harsh to make use of hostile design strategies, however, a tax paying citizen most certainly deserves tidy and un-disturbed public spaces. Let us not dive too deep into this rabbit hole.

The idea that some people want to make a niche and intentionally specific products is an individual design decision that businesses make, is not generally a target of scrutiny. According to my interpretation of inclusive design, it seems as though the ‘average’ products with inadvertently exclusionary design decisions are what is being addressed. However, I assure you, I will address ED II later in the piece.

The intriguing correlation

We quite obviously glossed over the various ways one could interpret exclusionary design, however, it is essential to try and determine the correlation between exclusionary and inclusive design. I mentioned earlier that the exclusionary design must be the antithesis of its inclusive counterpart. However, now that we have a more focused understanding of the afore-examined framework, it would be incorrect to assume that a blanket generalization as such is unerring. ED III, a form of exclusionary design that is unintentional, is seemingly closer to the tenets of inclusive design than EDIa. Therefore, it would be inevitable that some overlap between ED III and inclusive design exists. This part of the article would be to determine the extent of that intersection.

The word ‘include’ has early 15th-century Latin origins, which loosely translates to ‘shutting up/confinement’. The word has changed little meaning since then, as it still associates itself with the ‘act of making part of’. This is essential to make note of, as the consensus of its definition — or its vernacular — is its broadening, rather than what it is explicitly. In contrast, the word ‘exclude’ has mid-14th-century origins, as it refers to the act of ‘shutting out and debarring from admission’. The etymological roots of the words alone are great indicators of the fact that these terms are not mutually exclusive. The act of inclusion actively involves the exclusion of some sort, and vice-versa. This is not just an etymological connection between the words and their definitions but is visible throughout every facet of human existence. Some of the most competitive ones, with visibly determinable metrics of success (something which does not exist concerning inclusive design), the act of exclusion has generated great societal boon. For instance, sports teams do not actively seek inclusivity, but rather, actively exclude those that do not fit the standards of athletic prowess. Companies, in actively seeking meaningful and accomplished employees, exclude those not fit to work. The act of exclusion — through merit-based determination — is what has advanced every aspect of human society. It would be unreasonable to assume that in the field of design the converse would be true. The act of merit and reason-based inclusivity would inherently imply the active exclusion of non-viable markets and groups of people from the purview of consideration. I am unconvinced, due to the lack of empirical evidence, that the contrary could provide a reasonable degree of a positive net outcome in the field of Design.

If that is the case, why is the active push towards inclusive design misguided in nature, and yet so prevalent?

=

What do proponents of Inclusive Design get wrong?

Before I pronounce my criticisms of the edicts of Inclusive Design, it would be dishonorable not to mention the aspects of it I admire.

The notion of exercising one’s creative prowess is often undermined in the fast-paced reality of the 21st century. Inclusivity in design is an interesting design principle with which we as designers — as a form of mere creative exercise — are undeniably positive. The notion of trying to determine an idyllic solution to problems is quite intriguing. Furthermore, considering the extremes can be a part of the process, and it should be used to either embolden your own design decisions or understand the market as a whole. However, the limiting principle for the same is rarely determined, and quite possibly impossible to reach objectively. Its examination to a reasonable degree, with reasonably available resources, could benefit the overall determination of design decisions. As a student, still exploring the world of design, this principle undoubtedly allows me to find gaps in innovation and broaden my general understanding and awareness of the existing markets in the world.

However, emphasis on the point of me being a ‘student’. I would assume that the real world is not as empathetic and open to the notion of ‘free exploration’ ideas, as a college campus does. A fast-paced environment of reality which students like myself are often shielded from, by the walls of the college campus, is, I presume, much harsher and unpleasant towards the fiats of inclusive design. Furthermore, its current proliferation raises serious concerns as well. Therefore, my criticisms of its edicts are as follows:

1. Its place as a design ‘Ideology’

One of the more concerning aspects of design inclusivity is its supplantation into the design community as an ideology. Norman Doidge defines ideologies as, “[They] are simple ideas disguised as science or philosophy, that purport to explain the complexity of the world and offer remedies that will perfect it. Ideologues are people who pretend they know how to “make the world a better place” before they’ve taken care of their own chaos within. (The warrior identity that their ideology gives them covers over that chaos.)” He further opines that ideological inclinations are substitutes for true knowledge and that, “and ideologues are always dangerous when they come to power, because a simple-minded I-know-it-all approach is no match for the complexity of existence.” (Foreword, 12 Rules for Life)

As inclusivity in design gains ever more prominence, even among the elites of the community, I tend to notice patterns of this ideological inclination. This would mean that a community of people meant to have vibrancy in thought would start to establish a dogmatic attraction to its principles. Lewis Feuer, a professor at U of T observed that ideologies not just reshape, but also eliminate psychological richness. Inclinations as such must be avoided at all costs, especially when the design — and thoughts proliferating within design communities — must be as vibrant and disparate as they can be. An ideological tendency reverberates a chaotic decline. Inclusive design must remain as just one, out of many. (Lewis Feuer, Ideologies and Ideologists, 1975)

2. It may not be business friendly

The sheer scale of the global market today is quite astonishing. Amazon alone is a marketplace of over 350 million physical products. (https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/amazon-statistics/#amazon-everything-to-everybody).

In this competitive marketplace most consumer-facing businesses are actively looking to ensure three key goals are met:

a. Enough products are sold to generate a profit

b. Reduce all unnecessary overhead costs

c. Enter the market before the competition does

Not all companies have the time, scale, and most importantly, the bags of money to invest into a team of designers to make the most “inclusive” product. Most companies have a targeted audience that they aim to address, and any push towards inclusivity accomplish the following things:

a. Increase the overhead investment into research and development.

b. Increase the time required to do the necessary, and meaningful research.

Although many would argue that investment today could avail future profits, the evidence for that is murky at best. For instance, a Booz Allen Hamilton study of 1,000 public companies found negligible relation between financial gains and R&D investments. (https://www.ritamcgrath.com/sparks/2007/12/fascinating-study-on-rd-spending-and-return-on-innovation-by-booz-allen-ham/)

This would mean that companies — often operating on competitive grounds and within tight profit margins — do not have a financial incentive to engage in inclusive design. Not only is it a risky move, but a risky one with little to no foreseeable gains. I for one, as a designer, would never recommend my managers to undertake extensive research on trying to reach new, fringe users, unless I had a very good reason to do so. Not only would it increase developmental cost and time, but more importantly, it would skew the focus of the team — and likely for no good reason. A better strategy as a company, in most cases, would be to ensure that the existing customer base does not abandon us, by ensuring we are putting out quality products that our customers find meaningful.

Again, this is not a jab at the tenets of inclusive design. However, I think that the notion that inclusive design could be vastly profitable is a misguided one, which neglects the fact that there is a stream of activities that would end up increasing costs, possibly offsetting any profits the company is garnering. Reality is, indeed, often disappointing.

However, all is not lost, as reality also accounts for this (sort-of).

3. Being insular in defining ‘Inclusivity’

I promised I would talk about Exclusionary Design II. Here we are.

I believe that the proponents of inclusivity in design often make an ironic mistake. While claiming that they are for inclusion, they often relegate this exclusively to individual products.

Failing to recognize that we live in a time with a vibrant marketplace of products that exist in all niches, and only focusing on individual products and trying to make them usable at all ends of the spectrum is actively exclusionary of the wide ranging products available in the market. That is where ED II comes in.

Making products for niche markets, Exclusionary Design II, is a major aspect of the market, and there exists coruscating competition within this space. Its relevance in the equation of inclusivity in product design is monumental, as it only seems logical that one would have the agency to determine, in the marketplace, of what produces best suit his needs. This can be showcased more effectively in a simple diagrammatic representation, of a market with 4 products.

When inclusive design determines each product to be wide ranging along the spectrum of users, it does not have to be. Designers could easily pick a group of users, that is previously unaddressed, and create a market around them. It is expected to have great overlapping in the actual marketplace, between competing products. However, the broadly applied principle of inclusive design, does not have to be applied in order to reach the farthest extents of the market. The market creates incentives for businesses to determine opportunity gaps within the spectrum of users, and exploit them. Inclusive design would only distort them.

4. Compromising product quality

It would be unsurprising to assume that products that try to determine the best usability for the farthest extents of society, would inevitably compromise functionalities that would not have arisen, if fewer people were considered in the development process. By affording many, something that they can utilize to a certain extent, we neglect the potential of what a few (in relative terms) could do with a product specifically made for them. Compromises are often made in any product development process, and I am in no way advocating for specific product development for individual users. However, pushing the boundaries of arbitrary inclusivity is only going to increase the likelihood of unintentional and possibly consequential compromises being made, all of which could lead to, not only the detriment of the consumer, but also the producer.

5. Lack of focus

Lastly, the general lack of focus in a competitive sphere is inadvisable to create a successful product. In trying to determine the broad range of users who could possibly utilize a product, one could only imagine the number of tangents and spirals the design team would fall into. This blur in vision would deteriorate, if not cripple any business.

What does all of this mean?

I am generally unsatisfied with every aspect of the world and skeptical of many others. However, having written over 3000 words critiquing Inclusive Design and its implications, it would be disingenuous on my part to leave the reader on the note of doom. What is the alternative to inclusive design, if any? The term inclusivity is not inherently incorrect in the issue it aims to address, being that more people should have access to more quality products that make their lives more efficient and meaningful. However, the means of addressing it, and its focus on cramming the entire spectrum of users is inherently blinding and highly impractical, quite possibly by its noble intentions. Allowing designers, and the companies they work for to make the decision of which customers they want to design for, would improve company efficiency, product quality, and allow other companies to determine their user base. As mentioned earlier, the recognition of the irony that exists within the relegation of inclusive design to limited products, and instead, recognizing the broader market of products wherein, opportunities to solve problems in the farthest of the niches have value. Inclusive design need not be a design principle wherein we view an individual product to try and determine how it can solve a myriad of problems in society. Instead, recognizing the converse, that a myriad of solutions exist for the problems in society, and consumers can freely determine which ones work the best for them.