This is the third part of a three part blog that describes a guiding framework for inclusive design in a digitally transformed and increasingly connected world. Part One can be found here. Part Two can be found here. The three dimensions of the framework are:

1. Recognize, respect, and design for human uniqueness and variability.

2. Use inclusive, open & transparent processes, and co-design with people who have a diversity of perspectives, including people that can’t use or have difficulty using the current designs.

3. Realize that you are designing in a complex adaptive system

Treviranus, Jutta

This is the second part of a three part blog that describes a guiding framework for inclusive design in a digitally transformed and increasingly connected world. Part One can be found here. Part Three can be found here. The three dimensions of the framework are:

1. Recognize, respect, and design for human uniqueness and variability.

2. Use inclusive, open & transparent processes, and co-design with people who have a diversity of perspectives, including people that can’t use or have difficulty using the current designs.

3. Realize that you are designing in a complex adaptive system

OCAD University Open Research Repository

OCAD University Open Research RepositoryInclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC)2018 The three dimensions of Inclusive Design: Part twoTreviranus, Jutta Suggested citation: Treviranus, Jutta (2018) The three dimensions of Inclusive Design: Part two. Medium. Available at http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/2219/Open Research is a publicly accessible, curated repository for the preservation and dissemination of scholarly and creative output of the OCAD University community. Material in Open Research is open access and made available via the consent of the author and/or rights holder on a non-exclusive basis. The Three Dimensions of Inclusive Design, Part Two** This is the second part of a three part blog that describes a guiding framework for inclusive design in a digitally transformed and increasingly connected world. Part One can be found here. Part Three can be found here. The three dimensions of the framework are: 1. Recognize, respect, and design for human uniqueness and variability. 2. Use inclusive, open & transparent processes, and co-design with people who have a diversity of perspectives, including people that can’t use or have difficulty using the current designs. 3. Realize that you are designing in a complex adaptive system.  Co-designing in a diverse team The Lessons of Unrecognized Technology Pioneers Design is an awesome responsibility. There are many things that can go wrong or ways it can go “sideways.” To avoid doing something embarrassing or dangerous requires more than creativity and a sense of aesthetics. It requires a keen understanding of all the people that will use the design, their goals, and their variable contexts. Design is an especially daunting responsibility when you are designing things that are essential to someone, or designing things that require a significant personal investment from the user. I came to this realization many years ago when I started working with some of the invisible and unsung technology pioneers. These are the individuals that have been labeled “extreme users” or “edge users.” They have no choice but to risk the frontiers of technology design, and what they personally invest is profound and deep. The pioneers I worked with included technically courageous kids that learned a complex code during kindergarten, so they could talk and communicate (in this case it was a form of Morse code because it only took the timing of the one voluntary action they could reliably control). They included a hugely innovative and resourceful couple that learned a new means of writing almost monthly because the husband gradually lost functions as a debilitating progressive illness took its course. They also included a brilliant math student that had the patience to struggle with the inexcusably bad translations of math notation to synthetic speech, so she could obtain a math doctorate without sight. Over my 38 years in this field I have had the personal privilege to work with many more. It is working with these technical pioneers that has taught me the most about the process of design. The Responsibility of User Investments in Technology Designs Most of us can survive without the majority of the technologies we use. If the technologies stopped working, it is no doubt that we would be inconvenienced. It might be a shock to be forced to travel to see someone because our cell phone isn’t working, to write with a pen or pencil because our computer is misbehaving, to go to a shop to buy the things we need because the Website is down, to pick up a book or visit a library to find some information we need; but we would get by. For a growing group of people, the loss of the use of certain technologies means you have no way to talk, no way to write, no way to travel or move about, possibly no hands or legs, or no way to see, or hear, or understand. Relying on technology for these individuals has always meant a deeply personal and intimate relationship, akin to most people’s current relationships with smart phones or glasses. This also means that the design that is available to you (because often there are very limited choices, if there are any choices) requires a significant personal investment. If the technology is to fulfill its role it needs to become habituated and its operation needs to become largely unconscious or automatic. Just as we are not aware of moving our tongue, mouth and breathing apparatus when we speak, you can’t be worried about the mechanics of finding and selecting a word to communicate when you use a communication device. It interrupts the flow and the very purpose of communication. It takes a huge training investment to get to that automatic stage of use. You don’t want to have to learn to talk, write, walk, or read all over again too many times in your life. These are individuals that have many other barriers to face on a daily basis and for whom time and energy is an overspent precious commodity. It behooves us to create the very best personal fit and not require these individuals to unnecessarily squander precious time in struggling with and trying to decipher the interface/interaction/experience design. Impossible Understanding One of the first lessons I learned is that no amount of background research and statistics; no persona (however well researched, fulsome, evocative, and motivating); and, no empathy exercises or disability simulations; can ever teach you enough about the very personal and unique requirements and characteristics these individuals bring. It is a shameful conceit to suggest that you are an expert, or that you have more knowledge and insight, it is even hubris to suggest that you really understand. You cannot understand until you have no option but to live it. Even if that were to happen, it won’t be the same experience. Inverse Effects One of the distressing phenomena I observed during my career was the degree to which excelling in the respected design methods often led to worse design for the individuals that most depended on a good design. The more the designers engaged in rigorous research, or observation behind one-way mirrors, or focus groups with token representatives of high incidence disability groups, the more the designers failed to ‘get’ these pioneers and what was needed in the design. It was almost like the research and rigor was a shield to really understanding, while at the same time bolstering professional stature and distance.  Overwhelmed by the mean The larger the data set and the greater the power of the statistics, the more likely the unique needs of these pioneers would be lost or overpowered. It often became a tug of war between a design that stretched to where the edge user needed it versus a design backed by the research data — which would lead you away from the edge and toward the mean. Even the more creative design practices that involved an empathy cycle accompanied by ideation or brainstorming often landed on a design that completely missed the mark. While the designers could step out of their own assumptions and preconceptions, it didn’t necessarily mean they could step into the perspective of the edge user. Authentic Expertise This led me to the conviction that we need to recruit the most relevant and authentic expertise to the design team, namely the edge users or pioneers themselves. Not as research participants and subjects of study and analysis, but as full-fledged design team members, or co-designers. Not just during “empathy” and “user testing” stages, but throughout all design and development phases. We came to realize that “nothing about us without us” was not just a social justice mantra but a good design practice. Co-design for the Mainstream You might say this is great for design that is specifically about people with disabilities, or people who face literacy, aging, cultural or geographic barriers to access; what does this have to do with design in general? How is this relevant to mainstream user experience design? During our 25-year history my team has employed co-design with edge users and edge scenarios in many design projects that are not directly connected to people with disabilities, whether it is designing better learning management system user experiences, restructuring a government ministry, rethinking what a museum experience should be, planning better emergency procedures, helping to organize more effective transportation systems, working towards more foolproof voting systems, creating more successful open source communities, or designing more effective schools. Through this process we were able to verify Scott Page’s findings that the best planning, prediction, risk aversion and innovation happens when you bring together the broadest range of diverse perspectives. Scott has termed this the “diversity bonus.” Our team, the broader community, our partners, and the graduate program I launched are organized around this insight. At a basic level we don’t separate designers, researchers, developers and quality assurance people. They all work together. But also, the people that fill those roles bring the richest variety of perspectives we can muster. However, you cannot invite all possible users or their representative perspectives into your design teams. People who can’t use or have difficulty using a design  The Co-designers What we have discovered is that it is predominantly the edge users that contribute the most relevant, innovative, insightful and grounded perspectives to a diverse design team. To them, design isn’t abstract, it is essential and real. These edge users are also less likely to validate and defend a current design that doesn’t meet their needs. This led me to the obvious realization that if you want innovation or even design improvement, the best people to have at the design table are people that have difficulty with a current design or can’t use the current design. They are not invested in keeping the current design and they will stretch or expand your design further. Earning Trust However, genuinely and meaningfully engaging edge users in your design process is not an easy feat. With many communities you have to overcome a justifiable trust barrier. Many communities have been burned by exploitative researchers who come to verify their preconceptions. Ask any indigenous community regarding this experience. Or the community has been disillusioned and disappointed by entrepreneurs who feel they have found a solution to a perceived problem, and the experience feels more like the entrepreneurs have identified a nail for their hammer. Many other edge users have consultation fatigue because they have made the rounds as token representatives, so that a box can be checked on the equity and diversity policy checklist once all the important design decisions have already been made. It takes humility, respect, clear terms of commitment, and unwavering transparency to earn this trust. Inclusive Design Methods and Tools Another practical issue is that most design tools and activities are predominantly visual and spatial, whether it is the use of sticky notes, the various wire-frame options, mind maps or prototyping tools. If you want to include someone that relies on sound and/or touch, you must thoughtfully and consistently translate, or find alternatives. Most of these tools also require dexterity and manual manipulation to participate. We have played with many less traditional strategies but frequently need to resort to thoughtful teamwork as a fallback. At minimum, we document every design decision, the rationale, and the remaining questions in an accessible digital format such as our Wiki. Essential Role of Open Openness and transparency are essential tenets of inclusive design. Proprietary, closed systems always exclude and prevent interoperability. They also prevent extensibility which stunts the growth of knowledge and the integration of diverse perspectives. Designing the “Table” We have a commitment to continually ask, who are we missing from the “table” and how can we design our “table” (a.k.a. design process) so that it is more inclusive, and so we arrive at designs that bring about change. We find that the hardest aspects to redesign are not the physical factors, but the presumptions, assumptions and conventions brought by the institutions, organizations and expert designers we engage. People easily slide into traditional scripts and hierarchies and we need to regularly re-calibrate. Designing the structures that guide the process, so that the individual strengths of the design team members are engaged and produce more than the sum of the parts, is often harder than arriving at the brilliant design. The ability to both give and receive truly constructive critique is a valuable group skill. Willingness to take risks and learn from failures, early and often is also a fruitful strategy. A well-functioning and diverse design team is a wondrous, energizing thing that deserves careful maintenance. A Worthwhile Investment and Smart Strategy Respectful, inclusive co-design takes a little longer initially but is a valuable investment in the long run. We have confirmed, what others have observed, that the resulting design is less brittle, easier to update, requires fewer accessibility patches, fewer service calls, shorter training, and generally lasts longer. If you have a complex problem that requires community adoption and participation, addressing the edge scenario is often the best design strategy. For example, if you want to design a smart, sustainable neighborhood in a city where the citizenry distrusts your motives and your plans for managing data, addressing the needs of the individuals that can benefit the most from smart services but are also most vulnerable to data abuse and misuse is a strategically fruitful place to start. This might include engaging people who are blind in designing smart intersections, or people with episodic health issues in designing emergency services, for example. In both cases it is critical that the data remains private and secure. If the data protections are designed to safeguard the people most vulnerable to data abuse, the protections are more likely to meet the needs of the rest of the citizenry. Innovative services for people who can benefit from them the most will produce compelling examples that inspire further engagement. This will work far better than addressing the needs of the average citizen who has less compelling reasons to require smart services, and for whom data privacy threats are more theoretical. If you focus on the design for the majority first, you will need to address the edge scenarios soon enough and your design will lack the flexibility to stretch, so you will need to “bolt on” provisional approaches, which will make your design less sustainable. Mapping Success  Inclusive Design Mapping Tool Our criteria for a truly successful design is a design that reaches the edge requirements that we collectively identify within the co-design team. If you reach the edge, the design will also work better for the center. It will be more flexible and generous. If you design with the edge user, someone who isn’t an edge user will have more configuration choices. They don’t need to abandon your design when their needs, goals and contexts change. We often use an inclusive mapping tool to track our progress. We design in short, iterative, full cycles that produce testable functionality as early as possible. Reaching the edges doesn’t happen in the first go-round, but we strive to address more and more requirements and scenarios in each iteration. Planning Using a Virtuous Tornado Because we are guided and grounded by the co-designers, and engage in iterative cycles, our process confounds project planners who like linear logic models, and require Gantt or Pert charts to closely track progress. We believe our process is better suited to the quickly changing context of our current society. Who could have predicted the current political and technical situation two years ago in a linear logic model and charted it in a detailed Gantt chart?  The Virtuous Tornado We have developed a process we call our “virtuous tornado,” adding more functional requirements and use scenarios at each cycle to expand the design. This way we remain responsive and agile and make more relevant progress that will have greater impact in the long run. Because we don’t iterate toward a single solution but toward a system that can provide an optimal configuration for each user, what we design is more dynamically resilient. Lasting Change and the Inclusively Designed Process Many of today’s problems are too complex, people are too diverse, and the context is moving too fast to design a definitive fix or solution. Investment in a definitive fix leads us to ignore the changes, deny the complexity, and exclude the diversity. Inclusive design begins with no predetermined end point and no generalized success criteria but arrives at greater innovation, flexibility, and general usability. Employing an inclusively designed process will achieve a more lasting and productive change than a checklist of design criteria. Inviting the unrecognized technical pioneers to the design table is a gift that keeps on giving. **Please note this work is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License**  

The three dimensions of Inclusive Design: Part two

OCAD University Open Research RepositoryFaculty of Design, Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC)2018 The three dimensions of Inclusive Design: Part oneTreviranus, Jutta Suggested citation: Treviranus, Jutta (2018) The three dimensions of Inclusive Design: Part one. Medium. Available at http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/2216/Open Research is a publicly accessible, curated repository for the preservation and dissemination of scholarly and creative output of the OCAD University community. Material in Open Research is open access and made available via the consent of the author and/or rights holder on a non-exclusive basis. The Three Dimensions of Inclusive Design: Part One ** Handprints With the help of my team at the Inclusive Design Research Centre and our amazing global community I have tried to develop a guiding framework for inclusive design, suitable for a digitally transformed and increasingly connected context. It doesn’t lay out testable criteria, or an ordered checklist, because inclusive design is about diversity, variability and complexity.  It is not a set of static structures that assist in engineering a solution, because the complex adaptive system that is our current society is a domain where solutions can no longer be engineered but approaches must be grown, and investment in a fix for some creates greater barriers for others. The framework is intended to be more like a trellis that supports organic growth and provides a foundation from which to innovate and evolve. It has emerged, evolved, been tested, and refined over the 25-year history of our centre, in dozens of global initiatives. The three dimensions of the framework are: 1. Recognize, respect, and design for human uniqueness and variability. 2. Use inclusive, open & transparent processes, and co-design with people who have a diversity of perspectives, including people that can’t use or have difficulty using the current designs. 3. Realize that you are designing in a complex adaptive system. The framework is a trellis that supports organic growth  The three dimensions of inclusive design.  I will discuss each dimension in turn in this three-part blog. Part Two can be found here, and Part Three can be found here. Human Uniqueness The first dimension of the framework is to recognize the uniqueness of each individual. We are each an irreducible and evolving complex adaptive system of characteristics and needs. This uniqueness and wild, organic diversity has been inconvenient when it comes to designing products, communication, environments, or policies. It defies mass production, mass marketing, mass communication, mass education, as well as simple and straightforward public policies. Throughout civilization there have been attempts to corral and tame this diversity and complexity and find ways to deal with people as a more manageable, simple, and homogeneous mass. The more egregious attempts have employed violence, genocide, exclusion, othering, shaming, shunning and informal or formal discriminatory practices. Other strategies have been coercion, indoctrination, acculturation, breeding, propaganda and schooling. In our quest for knowledge or research and in our governance strategies we have reduced people into simple numbers that ignore this diversity and complexity. Through our laws, policing and penal systems we attempt to contain the edges of this diversity that are deemed more negative, but we have also institutionalized systems that either deny or suppress the harmless and beneficial aspects of this diversity, adaptation and complexity. If we can’t eliminate certain diversities we have sequestered and incarcerated people in camps, ghettos, “mad houses,” and specialized institutions for “deviants.” This aversion to diversity is both damaging to individuals and dangerous to our societies. (I would contend, but have not gathered enough evidence to assert, that the suppression of the positive aspects of our diversity contributes to the expression of the more negative aspects of our diversity.) Let’s imagine for a moment that the supposed utopia of a homogeneous mono-culture of ideal human beings were even achievable. Yes, manufacturers could produce a single simple product and market it to the entire customer base. Policymakers and researchers could easily predict behaviors and design policies to accommodate these behaviors. We could communicate a message in a single form and know that it is understood and received by everyone in our mono-culture. The requirements of our built environment would be straightforward and predictable. We would obviate empathy because everyone would be like us. But we would stagnate as a species as there would be no alternative ways of being to evolve toward. Any threat, such as a disease or a natural disaster would fell our society, as there would be no variability in immunity, or alternative responses to the threat. We would have a blinkered and limited perspective of our world and fail to see both all the wondrous but also the possibly dangerous edges. We would end innovation as there would be no disruptive and resourceful new responses emerging to challenges and dissonance. Yes, we could be comfortable and complacent, but we would not move or grow, individually as a person or collectively as a society. Relaxed Selection You might ask, isn’t it beneficial to prune the diversity by eliminating weaknesses and “deficits” and thereby strengthening the species? Isn’t evolving and advancing our species assisted by Darwinian survival of the fittest? Some people claim we can do this humanely through genetic engineering and doctor assisted suicide. According to Terrence Deacon, if this were the case we would not have developed language. If we trace the periods in our history as a species when we have made the greatest advances, it is at the times when we have had the benefit of relaxed selection. This means an absence of the pressures of survival of the fittest. This is when diversity can thrive. We have come to see the pivotal role that the complex adaptive social system plays in evolution. Variability and diversity, especially what we deem weaknesses and deficits, prompts the system as a whole to evolve and gain resourcefulness. (There are endless modern-day examples of this phenomena that include email, voice recognition, the telephone and aspects of the Web that make it successful). Perfection and Change Humans are a social species, we have become ever more entangled and connected. To advance as a species we must consider not only the isolated representatives of the species but the enmeshed collective system as a whole. We need fragility, weaknesses and gaps to enable change. As Leonard Cohen sang, “There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” When we near ideas of perfection, when systems become established, complacent and entrenched, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to change. Take systems of education in regions where education is institutionalized and revered. Take policies and practices that have become so habitual that they are unconscious. It requires major disruptions, or incidents of “creative destruction” to prompt the established and conventional to appropriately respond to a changing world. But a system, such as a team, that has diversity and variability within it and works to make room for and truly include this diversity can responsively change, remains dynamic, has enough collective perspectives to see the entire periphery to avoid and respond to threats and to notice promising opportunities. Such a system can also judge and test potential actions more thoroughly. Such a system has far more choices. It is better at resisting polarization because there are more than two powerful viewpoints. Paradoxically, if you have a platform with a huge spread of positions or perspectives you have greater equilibrium and can resist the swing of the pendulum between two extremes. This ensures that a political pendulum never swings too far into any extreme direction.  Enlightened Self-Interest As a society we need people who lead in facing challenges (that we often characterize as deficits and weaknesses), to stretch our boundaries as a society. We need these involuntary pioneers to not only stretch our boundaries in designing our environment, policies and products, but also our boundaries regarding the qualities we have come to see as our humanity. It is a bad day for our species when it becomes obvious that elephants, whales and dolphins surpass us in these “human” qualities of empathy, kindness and social cohesion. Every human, and every society will face challenges. As our mothers would remind us: “what goes around, comes around.” Karma is not mystical, it is logical. If we help to develop a society that responds respectfully to human variability, there will come a time when we ourselves benefit from that respect. If you prefer, this can be seen as a form of selfishness. We can also see it as enlightened self-interest. It is an investment in our long-term interests and the interests of our children. It is a way of preparing for the unpredictable and the unplanned. Not Charity I can argue that both Ayn Rand’s and Adam Smith’s views of the virtues of self-interest are too reductionist, impoverished and short-sighted. They fail to consider our complex, adaptive and entangled world and our inter-dependencies. To be clear, I’m not promoting charity. Charity, where the powerful, privileged and well-resourced deign to assist and give of their wealth to the less privileged, less fortunate and weaker, sets up an untenable power imbalance. It reinforces the superiority of the giver and the inferiority and expected indebtedness of the receiver. It is also vulnerable to “charity fatigue.” The receiver or supplicant must compete with many other possible receivers in a race to the bottom. Each potential recipient of charity competes for the position of the most pitiable. This competition normalizes the horrors of inequity. It is a vicious cycle and can only be a temporary Band-aid in a dire situation while we address the underlying causes. What I’m recommending is a society or social system that is designed to respect and include diversity and human variability at every nested level. We need a society where it is possible for people, with the full range of human difference, to participate and contribute. Responsible Designers Designers play an ever more important role in this as all fields of design and also design thinking are ascending and applied in more and more contexts. However, to apply this dimension of inclusive design requires unlearning many established conventions of design. Designers are taught to reduce and ignore complexity and diversity by creating representative persona of the typical or average user. As Todd Rose eloquently argues in his book The End of Average, there is no average person. Average is an artificial construct. There is not even an average us, we each vary from context to context, from goal to goal. Designers reduce contextual complexity by working in sterile and isolated labs. However, the design will not be applied in sterile and isolated conditions. Design research works toward finding one winning design that meets the needs of the largest customer base. This excludes anyone that is different. Approaches at the Margins Even the design practices that are intended to address the needs of people at the margins of our society, people who are viewed as different, often employ practices that ignore diversity. For example, we have propagated the notion that there is a one-size-fits-all version of accessibility for people who experience disabilities. However, the single defining characteristic of disability is difference — sufficient difference from the norm that things are not made or designed for you. In fact, people who experience disabilities are even more diverse than people who can use standard designs. They also have less degrees of freedom to adapt to a design that doesn’t fit well. Sorting and filtering people into categories and classifications based on a specific characteristic, such as a medical diagnosis, and designing for that category is another way of taming diversity. However, this leaves people falling through the cracks and stranded at the edges. The Qualities of the Digital and the Networked So, what am I suggesting designers do? I’m suggesting that we design to include diversity by leveraging the affordances that our digitally transformed and connected world provides us; to offer one-size-fits-one configurations that can be optimized to each user and stretch out to the edges of our human scatter-plot of needs and characteristics. The digital and networked presents many challenges but it also presents some powerful qualities and tools that make it easier to respect and optimally design for diversity and complexity. Unlike a door to a building that demands compromises and choices regarding how people enter, in a digital system we can present a different door configuration to each person, even if they are entering as a group, and going to the same destination. Using such things as style sheets, personalization, adaptive and responsive design, the door can morph and adapt to the needs of each visitor. As far as adaptation and personalization, I need to add three provisos. Not Segregated or Separate First, the one-size-fits-one design cannot be separate or segregated. If it is separate from the general market it will cost more. If it is designed separately from the standard application, it will be less interoperable. It will require special training and separate maintenance. Interoperability is a critical factor in the entangled, quickly evolving, complex networks that we depend upon, and a separate solution soon becomes orphaned and incompatible. Enabling Smarter People Second, if smarts are used to learn what each individual requires, we need to make sure that the person directs and gains the insight. The intelligence we gather should make the person smarter about their unique needs, rather than, or as well as, the machine smarter about how to adapt. This requires transparency regarding choices made and the reasons for the choices. Optimal Fit Thirdly, one-size-fits-one implies an optimal fit for the goal, it doesn’t necessarily mean a comfortable fit. If the goal is to learn, then the optimal fit will provide a challenge that is at the limits of achievement. The echo-chambers, and cushioning from alternative views, created by personalized media and news is not an optimal fit and does not serve to inform or present an accurate view of the world. An optimal fit in this domain would be to provide language and presentation choices that can be personalized to the individual’s needs so that more can be understood. It means translating currently foreign viewpoints, so they can be understood by strangers. Academics, scholars and researchers need to learn to use this form of design so that knowledge can be more democratically shared. Inclusive personalization builds bridges across differences and reduces fragmentation. Pooling, Sharing and Matching Needs Over a Network  The use of a network platform to address our diverse unmet needs A networked system makes it possible to share and pool resources so that we can create a wealth of variants to match the full diversity of needs. We can reach out across networks to find diverse innovators that can fill gaps and unmet demands. A networked community can help find a match, augment or translate designs so that everyone has choices that optimally meet their diverse and variable personal requirements. Diversity is our most valuable asset. Inclusion is our biggest challenge. Taking up the challenge will make our design better, and the human community we design with better. Part Two can be found here, and Part Three can be found here. **Please note this work is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License**  

The three dimensions of Inclusive Design: Part one