The event that inspired this impulse was a talk I saw during the world Usability Congress Graz called „Don’t design me out“ by Kausik Surendran. I have chosen to include this even though its isn’t my focus topic. I still think its highly relevant because the talk discussed the issue of inclusivity very nicely, which is something I sometimes tend to forget, even though I like to think that I try to consider everything and design with empathy. It reminded me of how important and complex the job of a designer can be and how much though and consideration sometimes has to go into the simplest of systems. No matter what topic I choose for my thesis in the end or which direction I go in, the principles of inclusive and empathetic design are something I will try to apply for all designs, whether it’s a product or a system or something else entirely.
An example that stuck with me was when Surendran described living in a smart home fully controlled by voice interfaces but having no voice. This moment made me reconsider how easily technology, even when intended to improve life, can unintentionally exclude. One thing I found especially interesting was the idea that a universal experience (like growing old) can still be so different for every person due to a bunch of factors like personal attitude, cultural factors, gender and identity, health and ability, socioeconomic situation.
With the topic of tangible interfaces especially, I’ve been coming from a place of what I’d call “screen fatigue.” As technology becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of our lives, there’s also a kind of screenification happening. It often feels like every problem is approached with the mindset of “if we can attach a screen to it, we will.” I find this somewhat exhausting, and the talk’s examination of the digital divide reminded me of this frustration that I and many others feel [1]. I think there is real value in questioning this approach. While technology has definitely had a positive impact on our lives, I believe it’s worth exploring how its integration can be made more accessible, not just more digital. Tangible interfaces, for example, could offer meaningful alternatives, especially for older people who are being left behind by overly screen-based solutions. Instead of digitalising everything and calling it progressive and innovative, perhaps we should consider how interaction can be made more human, intuitive, and inclusive.
Of course this is only one aspect. Simply removing the screen and claiming that this fixes a digital divide isn’t enough. The systems that take the screens place have to equally consider the users abilities and knowledge. I often approach tangible interfaces from the angle of curiosity, learning through making, or playful exploration. But what if physical engagement is not always possible or equally accessible? How could I design with adaptability, varying levels of mobility, or sensory capabilities in mind? How can interaction be designed so that it adapts to different users rather than requiring users to adapt to it? The concept of designing with empathy was one of the core messages. Surendran framed empathy not as a “nice to have” but as a strategic tool to design a better future for oneself and others. He emphasized that „technology is no longer a luxury, it is a tool, and therefore, its accessibility becomes a matter of equity“. For design to be truly inclusive, inclusion must begin at the core, not as an afterthought.
[1] Book: Technology vs. humanity p.38-39
Tangibility: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/258549.258715
Adaptive user interfaces: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574013721000034?via%3Dihub