Kat Holmes

Sometimes designed objects reject their users- a computer mouse that doesn't work for left-handed people, for example, or a touchscreen payment system that only works for people who read English phrases, have 20/20 vision, and use a credit card. Something as simple as color choices can render a product unusable for millions. These mismatches are the building blocks of exclusion. In Mismatch, Kat Holmes describes how design can lead to exclusion, and how design can also remedy exclusion. Inclusive design methods--designing objects with rather than for excluded users--can create elegant solutions that work well and benefit all.

How Inclusion Shapes Design

Mismatch

How inclusive methods can build elegant design solutions that work for all. Sometimes designed objects reject their users: a computer mouse that doesn't work for left-handed people, for example, or a touchscreen payment system that only works for people who read English phrases, have 20/20 vision, and use a credit card. Something as simple as color choices can render a product unusable for millions. These mismatches are the building blocks of exclusion. In Mismatch, Kat Holmes describes how design can lead to exclusion, and how design can also remedy exclusion. Inclusive design methods—designing objects with rather than for excluded users—can create elegant solutions that work well and benefit all. Holmes tells stories of pioneers of inclusive design, many of whom were drawn to work on inclusion because of their own experiences of exclusion. A gamer and designer who depends on voice recognition shows Holmes his “Wall of Exclusion,” which displays dozens of game controllers that require two hands to operate; an architect shares her firsthand knowledge of how design can fail communities, gleaned from growing up in Detroit's housing projects; an astronomer who began to lose her eyesight adapts a technique called “sonification” so she can “listen” to the stars. Designing for inclusion is not a feel-good sideline. Holmes shows how inclusion can be a source of innovation and growth, especially for digital technologies. It can be a catalyst for creativity and a boost for the bottom line as a customer base expands. And each time we remedy a mismatched interaction, we create an opportunity for more people to contribute to society in meaningful ways.

Nina 

“What we choose to make, shapes the future of who can participate in and contribute to society.”

Claudine

Universal design was born out of the built environment. It is rooted in architecture and environmental design. It emphasizes the end solution, most often one that is physically fixed. The principles of universal design are focused on attributes of the end result, such as "simple and intuitive to use" and 'perceptible information."I

We also found it helpful to distinguish inclusive design from related concepts, like accessibility and universal design. Here's a quick primer that guided our work: 

Accessibility: 1. The qualities that make an experience open to all. 2. A professional discipline aimed at achieving No. 1.

An important distinction is that accessibility is an attribute, while inclusive design is a method.

Participation doesn't require a particular design. But a particular design carn prohibit participation. The same phenomenon applies to technology. If writing stories required a keyboard, computer screen, and fluency in English, the only stories we'd read would be from people who match these requirements. Each feature created by designers determines who can interact with an environment and who is left out.

Imagine a playground full of only one kind of swing. A swing that requires you to be a certain height with two arms and two legs. The only people who will come to play are people who match this design, because the design welcomes them and no one else.

Goltsman led her design projects with what she called the I-N-G's. She would sit and observe how many different human activities were happening in a park. Goltsman would ask, "what I-N-G is most important to this environment?" Maybe it was running, digging, swinging, climbing, or sleeping. Whatever the I-N-G, the nextquestion was always how many ways can human beings engage in that activity?"

Inclusive design doesn’t mean you’re designing one thing for all people. You're designing a diversity of ways to participate so that everyone has a sense of belonging.

What leads to cycles of exclusion and why are they mnore prevalent than inclusion? Every day, design make incorrect assumptions about people. They might presume that someone who's blind doesn't use a camera. Or that a person who's deaf doesn't use a music streaming service. Is it malicious intent? Not likely

There is a risk that exclusion will become more prevalent as technology moves into every area of our lives, because interactions that were once human-to-himan are now facilitated by machines.

When a solution is meant to serve any member of society and then doesn't, the effects of exclusion can be negative. The experience can feel like rejection from society itself. 

Not all exclusive designs are negative. They simply reflect a series of choices made by people who have the power to set the rules of a given design.

That is, until we're locked out of accessing a building, product, or event that most people can access without difficulty. When the cycle of exclusion is in effect, the resulting designs are far from fair.

"You know that people will let you down, but computers aren't supposed to." We expect people to be unfair. People are fallible and prone to faults. Yet we expect technology to be impartial. Maybe it doesn't always work the way it's supposed to, but we tend to believe that inanimate objects are largely unbiased.

What if an object rejects us? Is it as painful as being rejected by a person?

It's fairly common for people to treat social rejection as a necessary part of learning to survive in the world of humans. 

Yet multiple studies show that social rejection might manifest in our bodies in wats that approximate physical pain.

For designers, one important way to change invisibility is to seek out the perspectives of people who are, or risk being, the most excluded by a solution. Often, the people who carry the greatest burden of exclusion also have the greatest insight into how to shift design toward inclusion.

This is another kind of mismatch. Hw we categorize people often doesn't reflect how they really are: multifaceted. When we design, which facets of human beings are most relevant to our solutions? 

As our bodies change, we encounter more mismatched designs, simply because the designs that once worked well for us don't change with us. There are two key side effects that stem from being subjected to high degrees of exclusion: societal invisibility and the pain of rejection. 

Everyone gains and loses abilities over the course of their lifetime.

Eventually, we all are excluded by designs that don’t fit our ever-changing bodies.

An exclusive design places a burden on people to find their own workarounds.

If a team doesn't have the experience, and isn't held accountable for finding a solution, they will likely build a solution that excludes.

Whether by lack of awareness, siloed decisions, or simple neglect, it can be difficult for organizations to drive toward inclusion if they don't have a full picture of how their existing culture perpetuates exclusion. of

I found this a bit superficial, but simultaneously packing a lot of issues in a short form without properly explaining them. Perhaps a decent primer, but not more than that.

Karolina

Rohini Anandamurugan

I was hoping to either learn about the problem in-depth or learn about practical solutions to be more inclusive in design. The book didn't cover any of it. There were a few insightful quips, but overall the book didn't say anything new. It was repetitive - and most of the repetition was about the most obvious things.

Quite disappointing.

Mismatch How Inclusion Shapes Design

Reviews

Highlights