Kat Holmes: Rethink What Inclusive Design Means

In her work at Mismatch.design and Google, Kat Holmes is helping other designers to rethink inclusive design not as a remedy for “personal health conditions” but as solves for “mismatches” - moments where human interactions are hindered by an absence of appropriate design solutions. Her 99U talk takes us through her journey to this approach, and how it can help us all recognize and combat everyday mismatches in the world.
About 99U
99U brings you the best of the creative world through the lens of design and the people and work who are shaping it.

[@Dannil1]

Does remind me of Bjarke Ingles starting point when he designs architecture.

[@the8u9]

As a scholar of cognitive psychology which studies heuristics, stereotypes, and ergonomics, the fundamental attribution errors here in Holmes' ideas is frustrating. The mere theory that there isn't an "average human being" is so silly that she disproves herself in their next point. Game console controller design, having two hands is quite possibly one of the most devastatingly average features on a human. A lot of these kinds of designers make the same incorrect assumption about what comes first. A racist bridge is one thing, but trying to say that a designer needs to have empathy in their design is another. Accessibility hinges on the success of the original product made to fit the average. Inclusive design does not exist. What DOES exist is contingent design. A good design should aim to COVER a broad range of contingencies, but with a core demographic in mind. When someone designs something by calibrating it to the lowest common denominator like designing something that even a blind person can use, it's not for the sake of emotional, empathetic, "inclusive" design. It is pragmatically calibrating a design to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to increase accessibility for more sales and usage.

[@ecesign1]

I don’t think she’s advocating inclusion as a means for driving commercial sales nor saying designers need to design products that are inclusive of all needs e.g. Swiss Army knife. Inclusion and empathy is merely a way of thinking to account for the minority or broaden application when the scope of the project is perhaps unintentionally biased. When and where to apply inclusion design is still at the discretion of the designer / firms in creating the product and, or services.

[@monkeywrench677]

I couldnt agree more

[@scribbles1440]

Also as a scholar (Ph.D.) in Psychology, if you knew anything about heuristics you'd know that inclusive and accessible design often makes the product better for everyone involved, and if you're talking about profit, being legally vulnerable is enough of a motivator when you assess the numbers. Microsoft literally made an accessible game controller which gave them a competitive edge in the market - just because of the altruism that the product gave its brand. (Microsoft is seen as one of the most charitable corporations in the United States.) And as a Neurodivergent person, allistics often get it wrong, because they are so rooted in their own biases. In most cases, inclusive design does not exist, but that's because most people don't care about meeting our needs. As an engineer, I am a targeted demographic, but I also have needs that are impacted by my disabilities. Luckily, that's a huge percentage of us, so you see plenty of engineering tools like muted color palettes, rather than stark high-contrast visuals that hurt your eyes after eight hours. Video games do this to their UI - yet we see ZERO websites on the internet that have anything more than "light/dark mode." - How about a mode that shifts the colors so people with colorblindness can see properly? Why do people just cram accessibility into HTML tags instead of providing a VUI experience? That VUI experience could allow people to browse the internet, hands-free while driving, much like listening to an audiobook. That benefits everyone, but no one pursues those avenues because people don't think accessibility is worth it. And you're perpetuating that.

[@the8u9]

@@scribbles1440 I love everything you said. My gripe is merely the positioning of this topic by this speaker. My point isn't that we do not need this "inclusive" design, my point is that we don't need to make it about emotion and empathy. Plus, that the speaker's line that there is no average human being is just false. The last bit of my comment is exactly what you said in the first part of your comment. When we design for the lowest common denominator, it makes everything better for everyone. It is a pragmatic and logical step forward, not a warm and fuzzy emotional one, that's all. So I have no disagreement with you.

[@scribbles1440]

@@the8u9 Sociologists actually are moving away from the idea of an average or "normal" human being. So, I'm not exactly sure that holds up. The idea of normal humans at its score spreads bigotry, hatred, discrimination on things that shouldn't matter. It's still in debate, but morally, I think there is a clear position.