When I first listened to this podcast, I was surprised by how surprised I was. Not only is it difficult to comprehend how more than 50% of the population are frequently neglected in the design process of product offerings that span our society’s most popular industries, but the reasoning is even more confusing.
In the last few weeks, I have conducted 25 interviews with women who are in management or leadership positions in their business or field, and this podcast has frequently come up in my mind as I speak with them. Just as I was unaware, most women do not fully understand how much our world is not designed for them. This is not to be confused with the world being actively designed against them (not particularly uncommon either), but is intended to emphasize how spaces that are supposed to be “user-driven” are not so. While it’s unnatural and unrealistic for us to expect that all our spaces are designed for us, it’s not wrong to demand that products and services with a “user-centered” reputation fulfill that very promise. This article/podcast made me think about how other products lack user-centered design, and why this hasn’t changed in such a profit-driven world. With this in mind, wouldn’t designing a product for as many diverse users as possible be the most profitable approach?
As stated in the podcast, ensuring diverse stakeholders and contributors are present and active in the design process is not enough to ensure a product is truly user-driven. Even when women are present in the data collection that drives the design process, the bias of data collection remains unchanged. My main question is what are the consequences and outcomes of generations of compensating for spaces failing to be designed for you? This question is relevant to women, immigrants, non-white people, non-English speakers, children, senior citizens, neuro-divergent people, people with physical disabilities and many other groups with various experience and stake in the design process. It’s no secret that products aren’t designed for these groups of people and they all experience different levels of product exclusion. However, the most incomprehensible component is that the accumulation of these under-designed-for groups deeply outnumbers that of the designed-for. Ultimately, inclusion is profitable, but it takes creativity and greater time commitment.
At risk of examining this failure from an overly-naïve lens, I don’t understand why it’s that difficult to design products for a larger variety of groups. Obviously, there is no product that includes everyone, but am I wrong in my assessment that nobody is asking for a product to include everyone? The criticism is coming from centuries of compensating for design discrepancies and anywhere from small to large inconveniences from products that aren’t quite right.
To bring it back to the central question, I want to theorize about some ways this has impacted under-designed for groups. The habit of compensation and settling for imperfect “user-designed” service can be argued to have positive effects on the groups mentioned in the article. While there exists no data to assess whether these benefits even compare to the harms, death, injuries, and inconveniences of exclusive design, even the mere character resilience is relevant enough to mention.
First, under-designed-for groups must be creative in their product selection and usage. They are put into positions to manipulate existing products in novel ways to make them fit or work for them. This is a valuable skill for life and allows for practice at skills that are necessary for various fields of work and collaboration. The second potentially positive outcome for these groups is patience. The patience and lower expectations that accompanies less fitting design is valuable for maintaining a positive outlook and attitude despite minor challenge and adversity. Finally, and potentially the most essential, under-designed-for groups have a greater opportunity to practice empathy in their own innovations. As the world of design, power, and data collection diversifies, adding in under-designed-groups enriches the process because the creator now will understand greater user challenges and dangers. This is a monumental asset to innovating our future and continuing to curate products that work for as many people as possible.
Ultimately, breaking up groups between designed-for and under-designed-for is far too general to encapsulate the entire experience. The truth is that obviously the outcomes (positive and negative) that come from products lacking design for certain groups have significant differences even within the group. This somewhat goes without saying, but it’s important to note just how diverse the under-designed-for population is. The major takeaway however is that being under-designed-for in the capitalist, profit-driven market can have small benefits for character and personal development, but they do not make up for the dangerous, harmful, and costly effects of being neglected in the data collection and design process.
I think you have brought attention to a very important subject. I never really thought about how discrimination can begin in the design process. I also find it impressive that you were able to interview 25 women about this issue.
This is a problem I had never really considered. The ideation and design process for products should consider both genders. It seems like common sense to want to make a product that’s good for all people, not just 50%. Of course, there are products that are inherently designed for one gender over another. That being said, general use items could take advantage of better designs that take into account female users.
The opening statistic about how more than 50% of the population are frequently neglected in the design process of product offerings that span our society’s most popular industries is incredibly interesting. I personally did not know this. I find it super fascinating that you were able to interview 25 women who are actually working in high-level, c-suite, industries to share their experience with this. In terms of the under-designed-for group, like you mentioned, there is SO much diversity in this target audience that leaves significant room for discovery and innovation.