�鶹��Ժ

Imagine the frustration felt being physically restricted from entering spaces intended for everyone; confusion on public transport because you don’t understand the local language; feeling the strain of your muscles as you hold a big box while trying to open a door; Struggling to open a pickle jar or hold a bar of soap in the shower. These are encumberments the disabled community faces daily, by living in a world not built to support them. As the builders of tomorrow, it is crucial that we learn to see our systems from different perspectives and understand the inherent biases of our worldview.

Currently, in the College of Engineering at CU-Boulder, students are rarely encouraged to design from diverse perspectives, let alone through a lens of disability. If CU’s mission is “to generate new knowledge in engineering and related fields and to equip students from diverse backgrounds to become leaders and citizens responsible for the betterment of individuals and society (Academic Affairs, 2022)”[1] then they need to teach students how to actively shift their perspective to that of different individuals within society.

Engineering at CU

Courses that teach ethics specifically for engineering undergrads are offered through the Herbst Program for Engineering Ethics and Society (ENES) but are not required for the completion of an engineering degree. The only place this track of learning can have in our schedule is through a certificate or in the 18 Humanities and Social Sciences credit hours needed for a Bachelor of Science at CU. In contrast, within the Creative Technology and Design (CTD) program, 6 credit hours of Critical Perspectives in Technology Electives (CPT) are required for degree completion. These courses help students develop theoretical perspectives and critical approaches relevant to technology (Critical Perspectives in Technology Electives, 2020)[2]. Outside the program, these courses can be counted for Humanities and Social Sciences credit. Having a diverse group of students is essential, but it is equally important that we are taught to think critically about how different people experience the same spaces. Technology is supposed to make humans’ lives easier either through transport, access to resources, productivity, social connection, etc. While going through the design process, it is important to think about the context your solution will be embedded in and who it will be used by. When engineers are working on a problem they are taught to assume they know the only, best solution. This perspective blinds them to how diverse groups of people will exist in the context of the application and the additional challenges that their solutions may create. This deficit of diverse input is especially apparent when looking at the functionality of accessible entrances and their directive signs.

I set out to find inaccessible designs on CU’s Boulder campus and I was disappointed by how easily I was able to find physical barriers to classrooms on a campus that boasts to be a center for innovation that positively impacts humanity. Figure 2 shows an entrance to the Duane Physics and Astrophysics building. There are multiple blue signs directing those in need of an accessible entrance, however, this sign is misleading because the entrance adjacent to the sign is not accessible. The closest entrance has a 4-inch change in level without a ramp or handrail. The sign is actually directing people to a door 100 feet down, as seen in Figure 3. I am very fortunate to never have needed an accessible entrance to enter the classroom and cannot imagine the frustration and discouragement the disabled community faces day-to-day trying to follow such ill-advised signage. This is grossly unacceptable for an institution that values innovation that positively impacts humanity. Simply changing the side of the door the sign is on would be more accommodating. While making an accessible entrance may seem intuitive, it is essential to understand how these small design decisions can cause harm to members of the community.

Engineering Fails

Historically, the world has not been structured to support those outside the norm. In the United States, we most often design for right-handed, able-bodied, white English speakers. In more recent years, disability inventions have become an exciting way to cater to a niche community, however, without insight from the target demographic, these devices can cause more harm than good. An example from the biomedical industry, specifically, is that there is limited research on the longevity of cutting-edge technology. One example of this is Second Sight, a prosthetic manufacturer for the blind. Second Sight sold retinal implantation Bionic Eyes that offered users artificial vision, a thrilling concept for those who wish to regain their sight. According to, Lucian Del Priore, one of the physicians involved in the clinical trials, “The idea that they were getting some kind of vision, it was kind of electrifying—for the patients and the doctors” (Strickland & Harris, 2022)[3]. While the idea was exciting, the practice was not profitable. Overhead sales and stiff compensation for in-house vision-rehabilitation specialists brought the company into bankruptcy. Without any notice, Second Sight canceled all updates and shut their system down, leaving users literally in the dark with a piece of obsolete technology surgically attached to their brains. Most patients opted not to get it removed due to the expensive and high-risk procedure. Second Sight provides a cautionary tale to those engineering for accessibility. Especially in the brain tech industry, it is important to think long-term about products. How can maintenance and promised services be performed and implemented to ensure the longevity of the device? This is a downfall because these pieces of new technology require a large amount of capital upfront that can be difficult to maintain and scale as the product becomes more popular. The need to find investors is a form of systemic oppression due to most corporations preferring to give their capital to causes that benefit the general population and not a specific demographic. Investors tend to see disability through the moral model and do not want to risk supporting a potentially controversial community. Often, there is a misconception that there is no market for accessible design, however, in the next section, I discuss why this misconception exists and is unfounded.

Disability History

According to the CDC [4], There are 61 million adults living with a disability worldwide. Various types of disabilities include mobility, cognition, independent living, hearing, and vision. To properly conceptualize designing for people with disabilities, we need to look at three different models for how people and institutions have defined disability in the past: moral, medical, and social. The moral model sees disability as having an impact on your character, deeds, and karma, often carrying stigma especially if the disability is seen as an indicator of wrongdoing. The medical model of disability defines it as something that needs to be fixed or cured in order to bring an individual as close as they can to “normal”. Finally, the social model sees disability as a part of one's identity, the fault lies in the existing attitudes and structures that discriminate against different abilities. The medical model places the problem on the person. In the social model, the problem is the assumption that everyone reads, moves, and understands the world around them in the same way (Olkin, n.d.)[5]. These assumptions overlook how disability is a natural part of the human experience. There is no true “normal.” To move forward as a society we need to stop medicalizing these differences and look at deficits in society and institutions that have been dehumanizing disabled people for centuries. Engineers create systems that align with their worldview, thus alienating a much larger part of our community. The problem solvers of tomorrow need to be better and follow the social model of disability to support and accommodate, instead of attempting to fix those different from us. It was not until 1990 that the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities [6]. In 2010, design standards were implemented with scoping and technical standards for state and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be usable by those with disabilities (ADA Standards for Accessible Design, n.d.) [7]. These regulations for expanding the norm of inclusion are fairly new and acknowledge a hugely untapped market due to systematic denial of support for the “other”. There will continue to be limited research and foresight into the longevity of these products as they continue to exclude their target audience throughout the design process.

How Can You Succeed?

The most direct, reasonable, and successful way to engineer accessibility is to use qualitative methods-- ask people who experience disabilities what their barriers to access might be. They are important, yet neglected, stakeholders and should be consulted throughout the entire design process. Engineers should find disabled influencers and consume their content, listen to their stories, then reach out to them. They understand their disability better than anyone. However, it is important to remember that it is NOT the responsibility of these public figures to educate engineers on everything and anything accessible. Like able-bodied people, they can only speak on their personal experiences. There are also countless open-source online tools and resources to help as well. One effective tool for graphic design is Adobe’s Color Contrast Analyzer and the Colorblind Safe tool (Color Accessibility, n.d.) [8]. This site creates color palettes using hex codes and RGB values with accessibility in mind. Another feature is generating a color scheme from an uploaded file, which can then be checked for contrast and readability for those with poor vision. This can be especially useful in brand and logo creation. For digital works, the Web Accessibility Initiative created the Web Content Accessibility Guide (WCAG), a set of guidelines and recommendations to make the web accessible to people with disabilities. It breaks accessibility down into writing and presenting content, user interface, and visual design, and coding and notation (Initiative, n.d.) [9]. An example HTML validator is A11ygator, a Twitter bot and browser extension that “bites websites to taste their accessibility, created by the Chialab in Italy” (A11ygator, n.d.) [10]. The user inputs their domain which is validated against WCAG2AA guidelines then marks errors, warnings, and notices in the code. These guidelines provide normative technical specifications and follow the criteria of perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust design. While there are too many other resources to list here, many can be found on the Web Accessibility Initiative’s website. Historically engineers have followed the medical model of disability, trying to solve the “problem” and bring disabled people closer to normal instead of meeting individuals where they are. In general design, there has been a recent shift from the cost of disability innovation to the potential value it can bring to the community. Engineers should not be experts on disability, but it is imperative that they know how to think critically about the different humans entering the spaces they create. An easy way to keep this at
the forefront of development is to follow the Universal Design Process.

Universal Design Process

When designing something for public use, often the target demographic is the average user. In contrast, the Universal Design process focuses on people with a broad range of abilities rather than the average person. Some things to consider are different languages, reading levels, and physical abilities. The key is to think about the effective practices of spaces that already exist. Then identify the perspectives of different types of people and discover how they can work together based on the various needs of the space (UDL: The UDL Guidelines, n.d.) [11]. A sample demographic to look at is the needs of old people versus young people. You might ask:

• Are the doors easy to open and signs easy to read?
• Consider peoples’ reason for being in the space. Are they in a rush? Are they leisuring or is this their place of work?

Putting these questions into practice, if building a library, some previously successful design decisions would be having different study spaces and various noise levels to accommodate different types of work. Next, consider the different people who will use the space. This can be students, employees, customers, or they may be coming in to simply use the restroom. These people will have different levels of ability to see, hear, and manipulate objects. Think about the demographics of the area of implementation then integrate best practices of the space with Universal Design principles. Engineers need to shift away from catering to the norm and take a hard look at the needs of the entire community. This shift in perspective requires an institutional shift in learning. In order for CU to create leaders for the betterment of society we need to embed inclusive education and the Universal Design process into the curriculum. To engineer for accessibility does not mean investing large amounts of capital into technology for niche abilities, but making smaller design decisions that benefit different types of people. At the beginning of the design process, when engineers are defining the problem, the best practice is to also define the needs of the people. If the University of Colorado is invested in generating new knowledge to better society, a good place to start is amplifying the voices and perspectives that have been excluded by society. It is crucial that the university builds leaders who step out of their perspective and expand their worldview to the unique needs of those within their community. We need to expand the curriculum to engineer an accessible, and diverse problem-solving perspective.

Works Cited 

1. Mission & Vision. College of Engineering & Applied Science. 
2. Critical Perspectives in Technology Electives
3. .
4.  (with accessible text) 
6.  
10.  
11. .

References

2. .
5. .