Disability dongles

Disability dongles are devices designed for individuals with disabilities. The term was introduced in 2019 by Liz Jackson, contributing to the discourse on assistive technology within the broader framework of social constructs. Coined with satirical intent, the term illuminates the paradoxical nature of these devices designed for individuals with disabilities. While originating as a critical descriptor, the concept has evolved beyond its satirical roots to encapsulate the complex intersection of innovation, societal expectations, and the genuine needs of the disabled community. This article explores the historical context, media representation, and the challenges associated with disability dongles, shedding light on their impact within the broader landscape of social constructs and assistive technology.

Background

History and meaning

The term "disability dongle" originated in 2019 as a critical descriptor within the field of assistive technology design and engineering.^[1] It was coined by Liz Jackson in April 2022. It's intended to look at common practices with developing Assistive technology humor. A "dongle" is typically a device that makes different technologies work together, and the term was chosen to highlight the confusing nature of assistive devices within society.

"Disability Dongles" are often prototypes that never reach the broader market, leaving disabled individuals without access to these innovations. Despite their good intentions, these prototypes can be seen as disconnected from the reality of disability. A notable example of this disconnect occurred in 2019 when The New York Times tweeted about researchers at Stanford University using Google Glass to teach social skills to autistic children.^[1] This approach focused on changing the behavior of autistic children to fit societal norms, rather than addressing the societal norms themselves.

In the media

Prominent in the disability awareness space is Liz Jackson. Jackson is the driving force behind The Disabled List, a disability-led critical design collective. This organization advocates for bottom-line changes in product operations and design. The Disabled List intends to draw attention to the perspectives of disabled people into design education and practice^[2] Jackson's tweet about "Disability Dongles" is commonly found in relevant media.^[3]

Motivation for creating disability dongles

Disability Dongles are frequently viewed as public relations exercises, aimed at generating interest in a company and enhancing its public image, with some of them never making it to production.^[4] In some cases, these inventions overlook the input of people with disabilities who may have already articulated alternative solutions to their specific needs, as seen with stair-climbing wheelchairs, when ramps can be used instead.^[4]

Examples

Wheelchairs

In 2019, a wheelchair was designed the climb stairs; however, many wheelchair users have expressed concerns about the device's demands on manual dexterity and core strength, while some have voiced apprehension about its safety, particularly due to the absence of straps or tie-downs.^[4] Beyond safety issues, these wheelchairs are expensive, up $30,000 at the time of creation, with limited insurance coverage. Insurers, including private companies and Medicare/Medicaid, base coverage decisions for durable medical equipment (DME) on demonstrated need, which can be a stringent criterion.^[4] Even when individuals demonstrate a clear mobility need, insurance companies may be hesitant to cover the full cost, as highlighted by a recent story where a student purchased an electric chair for a friend, sidestepping the fact that the friend's insurance should have provided a suitable and well-fitted chair.^[4]

ASL signing

Sign-language gloves, aiming to translate American Sign Language (ASL) gestures into text or speech, have captured public fascination over the years. However, test products were limited in their capabilities, and even gloves with more advanced technology faced criticism from ASL experts ^[which?]. They argue that these devices oversimplify ASL, failing to capture its complexity, which includes facial expressions, body movements, and coarticulation.

Additionally, the Deaf community has voiced concerns about cultural appropriation, as non-Deaf inventors gain recognition for technologies rooted in Deaf culture. Paradoxically, it is the Deaf signers who must adapt to using these gloves and computers, reinforcing the idea that these inventions prioritize hearing individuals over empowering the Deaf community. While engineers have begun to incorporate cultural sensitivity into their projects, the absence of Deaf user involvement remains a significant challenge, potentially hindering the effectiveness of these initiatives. Ultimately, the Deaf community seeks technology that genuinely enhances their communication, fosters inclusivity, and respects the richness of sign languages.^[5]

Google Glass

In 2019, Liz Jackson highlighted the way a Disability Dongle was promoted by a The New York Times article.^[1] The article referenced the communication challenges autistic children face and the results of a 2018 Stanford University study^[6] on the use of Google Glass, a wearable smart device developed by Google, to help such children recognize emotions, make eye contact, and classify emotions.^[7] Jackson noted the article's focus on the negative consequences of when autistic children's communication ability did not meet societal norms and, therefore, how the article, study, and Google Glass created a Disability Dongle by promoting conformity to the normative society instead of suggesting ways to include the children's experience within societal norms.

References

0.00 (0 votes) Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability dongles. Read more