Design Discussion – Week 7
The Lows of High Tech
– Reading Discussion –What I have learned:
Admittedly, prosthetics technology is something I don’t have much background knowledge on, making the experience of reading this article very informative as I was able to learn a lot more about a new topic.
Highlighting the perspective of a prosthetics technology user, the article focuses on the personal experiences and thoughts of Britt Young, a geographer and writer who, due to her “congenital upper limb deficiency” has used prosthetic tools for much of her life. Beginning by recognizing that assistive technology has had many positive impacts on the lives of those with disabilities, the article also brings up how there is still much room for improvement. For example, in Britt’s experience, she has faced many disappointments with such technology growing up, voicing out how despite society oftentimes framing these tools as a magical “fix” to their struggles, many users continue facing problems in their everyday lives.
Delving into the history and evolution of prosthetics, the article mentions how this type of technology dates back centuries, throughout ancient civilizations. However, the most major advancements have been in recent times due to a rise in injuries from wars, inciting a response from government and military agencies. This increased interest in the research and development of prosthetics saw a boost in expansion and funding, ultimately taking the issue into the medical field.
Moreover, in the 2000s, society saw even more changes in the area of prosthetics technology. With new programs being launched in this era, not only was the field revolutionized in possibilities, but aesthetically too. The focus of research at this time shifted towards “…building the ultimate powered hand that would be sleeker and multi-articulating, meaning the individual digits on the hand could move and form different grip patterns. These new devices also looked bionic and invoked a type of robotic aesthetic.”
Still, despite technical advancements recently, that doesn’t mean innovation is done. There is always room for improvement and not every aspect of these prosthetics has been perfected. As Britt discusses, for her, using prosthetics became more of a chore than an assistive tool as doing simple tasks seemed more tedious. In the end, she chose to abandon it for more comfortable alternatives. Not only that, but another downside to advanced prosthetics is their increasingly expensive price. As the article points out, this is a major restriction for people with disabilities because “…most people who would need them will never have access to them.” Still, many people feel pressured to choose these expensive tools over others in hopes of receiving positive attention.
The article concludes by highlighting the point that everyone’s experience is different stating, “There is no such thing as one size fits all solution assistive tech, and we need to listen to what people need to navigate the world.” The field has so much future potential and even with major developments and new and innovative tools being created every day, there is always more that can be done to make this technology inclusive, accessible, and considerate.
How technology designed to help people with disabilities affects disabled people:
1) Benefits for people with disabilities:
The field of prosthetics is a fast-growing one, providing many positive benefits for users through machines that target different sorts of problems depending on the audiences’ needs. Everyone’s challenges are different, and while one person may be concerned over utility, another may prioritize aesthetics. For many people, these tools provide a gateway to opportunities, and with many customizable options that target different issues, whether users were born with a disability or developed them later in life, the available tools have only continued to improve as time passes. As the article spotlights, an example of a type of invention that targets a specific issue is passive prosthetics. Although these devices have no mobility, they can provide aid in other ways such as stability and balance, as well as cosmetic purposes by seamlessly and discreetly blending into the user’s body. It is a subtle solution but one that can have a very impactful change in the lives of users.
2) Fails to benefit people with disabilities:
Nevertheless, despite countless benefits and innovative advancements, in some cases, these creations and tools end up causing more harm than good to the communities they were intended to assist.
For example, as the article discusses, “These stories give people an unrealistic expectation of what advanced prosthetic devices can actually do for users. And they show a very narrow version of what thriving looks like for people with a disability.” Having a successful product and an uplifting story can bring more awareness to tools available for people with certain disabilities. However, one of the most damaging elements that often comes along with these stories is the misleading connotations and messages that they spread. Designers are just as in danger of falling into these harmful mindsets as consumers. Best illustrated by the “inspiration porn” crisis, where high-tech prosthetics are usually promoted in a good light, paying little regard to the challenges and problems that users still experience. Society and the media paint a very limited image of what living with these challenges is truly like, choosing to only portray the good elements.
Additionally, for many people, these tools are not always a saving grace but a process and there are still issues and struggles. Not only does this objectify those with disabilities by pushing the idea that you can just “fix” a body by building something new, but it completely drowns out their voices in the global space. Promoting such products and stories can give off the notion that the intended audience for these tools should want to use them, implying that it is not society that is placing limitations on what they can do without assistive tools, but that they are the “problem” and thus should want to change themselves to fit into a world that is blind and unwelcoming to their obstacles. A better solution would be to create more inclusive and accessible surroundings for people with disabilities, instead of solely placing the pressure to to adapt on them as they struggle to navigate an inconsiderate designed world.