One Size Doesn't Fit All: On the Adaptable Universal Design of Assistive Technologies

Abstract

Occupational therapists modify mass-produced and universally-designed assistive technologies (ATs) to fulfill the specific needs of people with disabilities. We interviewed ten occupational therapists with experience in modifying ATs in order to understand adaptation processes. Our findings reveal the reasoning behind adaptation, common ATs that require adaptation, as well as the collaborative nature of adaptation. We propose a new framework called Adaptable Universal Design (AUD) that blends Universal Design with the need to adapt ATs in order to fulfill unique and specific user needs.

Design and assistive technology: a tinder match waiting to happen

“…Examples include the physical aspects of AT (too heavy to use or otherwise uncomfortable) (Sugawara et al 2018; Davin 2020), difficulties in utilisation (Wiart et al 2003; Dijcks et al 2006; Lorenzini et al 2021), increased feelings of stigma and social isolation due to the appearance of AT (Johnston et al 2014; Van Schyndel et al 2014; Li et al 2021) and cognitive barriers, for example, being too fatiguing to sustain use (Kittel, Di Marco & Stewart 2002; Cruz et al 2016). Within both health and design literature, there is consensus that engaging primary stakeholders, including the end-user and their prescribing therapist, throughout the process will improve outcomes in AT (Lynn et al 2016; Aflatoony & Kolarić 2022). Increasingly, methods such as user-centred design and co-design may facilitate the approach to these issues (Lynn et al 2016; Rasmussen et al 2022).…”

“…This literature review demonstrates a disconnect between design and OT; however, this does not mean design is wholly disengaged (Santos & Silveira 2021). There is increasing evidence of design methods being utilised within AT, with examples within the literature including using technology for music making with older adults (Macritchie et al 2022), wireless power wheelchair charging (Philips et al 2022), personalised assistive technologies (Aflatoony & Jin Lee 2020; Aflatoony & Kolarić 2022), modification of mobility aids (Wilkinson & De Angeli 2014) and tools for stroke rehabilitation (Mawson et al 2014). Increasingly, systematic literature reviews discuss design input within the AT space, noting this as a growing area of interest (Duque et al 2019; Oswal 2019; Santos & Silveira 2021).…”

“…However, ongoing inequalities within the design and provision of assistive technology (AT) result in growing concern surrounding persons with lived experience of disabilities (PWLED) within our community (Johnson 2020; Russo & Wooley 2020; World Health Organization (WHO) 2022). For example, while universal, inclusive and equitable design practices have resulted in social change, particularly in built and digital environments, there are inherent complexities in designing physical products for daily living for all (Mankoff, Hayes & Kasnitz 2010; Oswal 2019; Aflatoony & Kolarić 2022; WHO 2022). Subsequently, these products may not accommodate the spectrum of accessibility without further modification, resulting in an ongoing need for AT (Mankoff et al 2010; Aflatoony & Kolarić 2022; WHO 2022).…”

“…For example, while universal, inclusive and equitable design practices have resulted in social change, particularly in built and digital environments, there are inherent complexities in designing physical products for daily living for all (Mankoff, Hayes & Kasnitz 2010; Oswal 2019; Aflatoony & Kolarić 2022; WHO 2022). Subsequently, these products may not accommodate the spectrum of accessibility without further modification, resulting in an ongoing need for AT (Mankoff et al 2010; Aflatoony & Kolarić 2022; WHO 2022).…”

‘Indriya’ – Participatory Design of a Multi-Sensory Learning Aid for Children With Communication Disorder

“…While mass-produced devices, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, etc. may be purchased off-the-shelf, certain assistive devices need to be customized to cater to a specific individual (Aflatoony et al, 2022). Even within the same category, sometimes the standard devices may not work for an individual, which leads to a lack of adoption of the device, in turn, hindering the rehabilitation aspect or the daily living of the individual (Gitlin et al, 1996;Buhler et al, 2015).…”