All designers have the capacity to solve complex problems, translating them into objects, products, and even visuals. A minority of them, though, are able to look past underlying biases and implement solutions for all types of audiences.
Nonetheless, the lack of inclusivity in design affects more people than you’d expect. According to Sara Hendren, the author of “What Can a Body Do?” [3] 15% of humans live with disabilities. What is not often discussed is the fact that disability is fluid, almost everyone has been in a phase of disability during their lifetime. How many people that you know have ever gotten surgery? If you personally haven’t, you know at least someone close to you who has.
Surprisingly, most designs around us aren’t too innovative. Objects that are used in our daily lives, like chairs, were created for a specific type of person but then promised to be useful for all people. This subconsciously develops an idea that “normal” people are the ones who fit into the boundaries of the product, deeming it useful [2]. This dangerously leads into the belief that the audience that doesn’t fit into those guidelines is somehow “abnormal” when in reality, every human is unique.
When it comes to products, the technology field is a good example. Only a few tech creators embrace a sensitive design philosophy: understand the roots of multiple identities. These roots can be categorized as inherited (race, gender, eye color), ascribed (name, social security number, system identifier), and elective (twitter names, selected photographs, clothing style), which can be found in more detail in the article, “An Inclusive, Value Sensitive Design Perspective on Future Identity Technologies” [1]. Without understanding the multiple facets that define a person, tech products are more likely to fail. For example, an airport security scanner must be tested in a diverse crowd before being ready to be exposed to all folks across the globe.
It’s easier to acknowledge these problems in concrete three-dimensional products, like a chair or a scanner, but it can take a lot more digging to understand the thought process behind a visual design. Many times, visual designers can be ignorant to the meaning of choosing a certain font or specific colors when making a poster. These decisions come from associations created through the designer’s observations. The theory section of the book “Extra Bold” [5] explains that “Performance creates the performer. Norms become visible and dominant because they are repeated across society.”
Whether you’re a designer or not, you grow up associating things taught by older people who were taught the same things from an older generation. This repetition can come in many forms, such as picking the color pink to represent femininity and a serif font for an elegant brand. When graphic designers make expected choices, they’re unintentionally teaching their audience patterns of social norms, which are going to be passed to other people causing a cycle. Frankly, I’m guilty of that cycle. As a design student, I often fall into the same trap of doing what I think my professors will approve of. Last semester, I designed a poster based on my hobby of skateboarding which became an example of my personal bias.
Skateboarding is a male-dominated sport. Trying to spread the message regarding gender inclusivity in the field, I created a gradient for the poster background, using pink tones. The irony is apparent since I typed, “deconstructing gender norms.” The final product led to me subconsciously enhancing old gender norms through a color palette that “includes” girls (image 1).
Another example from my work represents what I suggested earlier as the incorporation of sensitive design principles. In March 2021, I was prompted with a poster project for a relevant historic movement. With this broad starting point, I could have easily kept the old standards of visual design alive, picking stereotypical elements to compose my piece. Instead, I chose to create something divergent. With the intention of starting a conversation about diversity, I created a poster for the legalization of same-sex marriages in the United States (image 2). The key component of my project was the formation of two main figures: women made out of multiple women’s body parts with historic pictures of LGBTQA+ in the background. The goal was to give attention to the fact this human right was only conquered six years ago in the United States, highlighting that queer folks don’t have a specific face, body, gender, race, or phenotype. This is why we are called a community and designers must open their eyes to being more sensitive.
Being a designer means having the power to shape society. For design to become a more sensitive practice, change needs to happen from the inside out. First, there’s a need for more research in the area. The concept of Value Sensitive Design is a good starting point but we must see how it relates to the current day society through case studies, surveys, tests, and interviews [1]. This must also be present in the design thinking process of creating visuals and not just products. Second, change needs to begin with the designer’s environment such as agencies and companies along with the designer’s mindset. One of the takeaways from the previously mentioned sources is that there must be a necessity for combining fundamental human rights with individual wants for an idea to be successful for all users [2]. Designers can achieve this by exposing their ideas for debate. Ultimately, varying perspectives are crucial. Agencies and companies must hire a variety of designers from not only different backgrounds but also with different values and priorities. This approach can improve the public impact of a design.
The good news, is that there are small signs of improvement happening in the field. The only historically black college in Michigan [4] is switching to become a design-focused school. Training high-quality black designers for the workforce will give opportunities for black people of color as well as decrease the homogeneity of the creative field which has the potential of, in the future, more worldwide sensitive design results.
As the scholar Sarah Hendren wrote in her book, “we shouldn’t adapt to the world’s definition of normalcy but rather make the world adapt for all” [3]. There’s a long journey ahead for inclusion and having a society free of exclusion is a utopian ideal, but designers should begin by doing their part.
References
[1]. Briggs, P., & Thomas, L. (2015). An Inclusive, Value Sensitive Design Perspective on Future Identity Technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(5), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2778972
[2]. Harrison, & Humphrey, S. E. (2010). Designing for diversity or diversity for design? Tasks, interdependence, and within-unit differences at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.608
[3]. Hendren, S. (2020). What Can a Body Do? : How We Meet the Built World. Penguin Publishing Group.
[4]. Hickman, Matt. “The Only HBCU in Michigan Will Be Revived with Design Focus at Detroit's College of Creative Studies.” The Architect's Newspaper, 3 Nov. 2021, https://www.archpaper.com/2021/11/the-only-hbcu-in-michigan-will-be-revived-with-design-focus-at-detroits-college-of-creative-studies/?fbclid=IwAR1hjqOFkmPgxEasYnjSUG9T5Qr1vzzthJQ0HJpOLNfbXjfup4o-FOap0es
[5]. Lupton, & Lupton, E. (2021). Extra bold : a feminist inclusive anti-racist non-binary field guide for graphic designers / Ellen Lupton, [and six others]. Princeton Architectural Press.
Comments