Why Designers Are Responsible for Societies Social Structure
By: Whitney Hill
Created: November 2012 / Posted: July 23, 2013
There is a
problem. An epidemic, a sickness
fragmenting our societies very fiber and woefully little is being done to
eradicate it. This debilitating problem, plague to sanity, endangers over a
third of the world’s population; the end is not nigh. I’m of course talking
about the disease of the designers.
It
can be argued that the sole purpose of a designer is to constantly create and
destroy, which in turn creates a correlation with the individuals who purchase,
use and discard what’s been generated. What the affluent designer assumes is needed for the community
becomes implemented and unless a thorough user and market analysis is
researched and taken into account, a flawed product becomes born. However, the
imperfections of this bastard product (product of urban plans by architects, social
structure by the lawmakers and government) at times become overlooked and
instead scapegoated towards the ‘imperfections’ of the individuals who use
them. I repeat, there is problem and it is with the ideology of the designer
and their flawed product that alienates their users.
The
unfortunate consequence of using flawed ideology to make decisions for the
masses is usually paired in conjunction with flawed terminology. The words
themselves are weighed heavy when they are inaccurately paired to an unfamiliar
demographic. Basically, the more incorrect guesses and assumptions there are
about a community, the higher chance that the words that are used to describe
said community become inaccurate.
More harm is done
when these particular labels not only begin to stick, but also used to define
the individuals within the particular community. A good example of this is the
phrase “deaf and dumb” which was coined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. He
concluded that since (inaccurately so) deaf people were incapable of being
taught and lacked rational thinking, basic cognitive abilities, that they were
a burden to society, an ideation that was encouraged by the design of the Greek
empire. The unfortunate longevity of the phrase “deaf and dumb” far outlived Aristotle
and has plagued the deaf community ever since.[1]
Indeed, the
‘disabled’ communities are not the only ones being mislabeled. Almost every
community that strays from the norm when it comes to race, gender or creed also
becomes ill defined and therefore underdeveloped by designers who are
unfamiliar. The needs are hardly ever then addressed.
When a design for an object, floor plan
or legislation is actually considered from a non-biased perspective - leaving
pre-conceived notions and poor definitions aside – the “objects escape the
boundaries of categorization [and] they become wild, and like the wild card in
a pack of cards, can be used to take on different values according to the state
of play of the game.”[2] Case in
point, Apple’s iphone has been repeatedly praised by not only various
‘disabled’ communities (i.e. blind, deaf, autistic and cerebral palsy, to name
a few) as well as the elderly community, but also by the already much designed
for, mainstream market. A couple of the notable features include the software VoiceOver, which has been
integrated with AssistiveTouch, Zoom and Maps and Guided Access. The inclusive
features allow for easier access to map navigation (audio GPS tracker) and
interpretation of text without depending solely on one’s personal mobility or
technical understanding.[3]
The idea and word of “limitation” becomes rethought as a much broader user base
is brought together. The age-old designer concept of different looking people
needing to be segregated from one another other and forced to use only what’s
available for them - starts to loose its appeal and thus becomes economically
unviable for a companies success.
In turn, with many
electronic devices on the market that are usually split between aesthetic and
function, the iphone does become a rare case of a highly popularized and
universally sought after product that actually includes good/inclusive design
and interface. It should be noted that other companies start to base their
business models after inclusive design if it is shown that it has been viable
and finically successful for other companies (i.e. How Android phones are now
heavily influenced by Apple’s inclusively designed iphone)[4].
The design can directly change corporate ideation, if done right.
The
disease of the designers can be treated. It’s possible. The designer needs
rehab, re-education. The remedy is surprisingly easy to understand. Simply by
looking at the honest needs of the individuals within a specific
group/demographic and designing an inclusive system that not only supports and
empowers their community but the ‘mainstream’ as well, gets rid of conflicts
dealing with lack of resources, improper handling, harmful terminology and
destructive influencing of other communities. A higher quality of life is given
to all members of society. A resuscitation of good design and designers can then
be used to place the stepping-stones for a future of tolerance.
0 comments: