The Great PDT Debate

The great debate! Held digitally this year, and it made for an interesting 4 hours of class to say the least. There were many interesting points made on a variety of different arguments for and against. The most successful and controversial spilling over from our verbal platform into the text based forum. Gender equality in the field of design, deigns by people other than designers? Our (my partner and I) topic of one size does not fit all design. (see below for the script we put together)

What I learned during the class is that everyone has their own opinions. We got to pick the sides we argued; for or against. Most people opted to align themselves with the side they believed in more, and that makes sense. It leads to a more passionate debate. Those were the ones I found I engaged with more, typing in questions and thinking about the points people were making.

The two most memorable of the many topics covered, are the ones I mentioned above. Obviously excluding my own as we wrote and presented that. Both are topics I believe that will have a significant change over the next few years and indeed well into the future. I mentioned briefly in my last blog “Paddy’s Day in Quarantine”, how the future will be open source. That was a point brought up and heavily disputed by the two groups in that debate. As for gender equality, that’s an issue that I am not brave enough to venture into. The entire class got involved in this debate, and it is still quite controversial as to the result that came out of it.

As for my own topic, you will find our argument below. For me, it was difficult to script in line with what I believed, because Universal and inclusive design should be at the heart of everything. That in practice is very hard to achieve. I had fun writing this, trying to incorporate jokes which had to be cut because of time restraints and not being in the same room as the people we were debating against.

The main takeaway for me is that it no matter what the topic of conversation is, what your viewpoint is and opinions are, you should always be listening and keep an open mind.

Links to the people invloved in the debates mentionted above and our opponents viewpoint. (links will be provided as thier respecive blogs are updated)

My Partner;

Joe Breen

Our opponents;

Eddie Hellewell and Patrick Geary

The Gender Disupte;

For: John Chrisite and Niamh Barry Against: Adam Flanagan and Philip Deegan

Design Professionals or public?

For: Donagh Dorman and Edward Howe Against: Michael Burke and Sam Meany

Our Debate

Chairperson, adjudicator, members of the opposition, and fellow PDT course members, I am here today, along with my teammate Adam, to state why I am for the motion ‘The principles of Universal Design are not relevant because ‘One size does NOT fit all’’.

First and foremost I think it would be in the interest of everybody here to go into a short summary of what the ‘Principles of universal design’ are. There are 7 of these principles which were originally created by a group of people headed up by a man named Ronald Mace. Ronald was an architect, an Industrial designer and a wheelchair user. Here is a brief summary of the principles;

· Principle 1: Equitable Use. The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

· Principle 2: Flexibility in Use. The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

· Principle 3: Simple and Intuitive Use. Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

· Principle 4: Perceptible Information. The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.

· Principle 5: Tolerance for Error. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

· Principle 6: Low Physical Effort. The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.

· Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use. Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of the user's body size, posture, or mobility.

There is no way that I can disagree with the fact that these principles are relevant. I am the first person who wants to get rid of stairs in favour of ramps and elevators. The fact of the matter is that accessibility and the other things mentioned in the principles should be at the heart of all design, but in saying this ‘One size does not fit all’. There are any number of reasons for this, but there are a certain few we will be talking about.

The first of which affects us all on a daily basis. We are all designers at various points in our careers and we should be the first to realize that one size does not fit all. Examples of this can be dreamt up, but why not turn to science to back us up, after all we did have an entire CDC class on human experience. We were all there; we don’t need to get into it.

What about our dearest design process? As designers, we can’t be told how to design. As design students, we have the ‘design process’ drilled into us from week one. Ever since the first semester of our first year, we were told to follow these instructions religiously as we progressed. The primary issue that I have with this is that one project can vary a lot from the last one. The time frame, buyer, product sector, whether you are doing your own design or developing an existing product. All these factors have a significant impact on how you should carry out the project. For example, if you were a baker, you wouldn’t use the exact same process every time expecting to get a different result. A pastry is not quite the same as a loaf of bread now is it?

Colleges in general need to be more accepting of how students work, a process that works for an individual may be a nightmare workflow for another. After all we came to college to grow as people, not to be forced through another cookie cutter. Restricting the process to one set of stages only reduces creativity in individuals, and according to the UL website, Product Design and Technology is a learning environment that cultivates creativity. It might even be said that the principles of Universal Design are preventing the goal of this programme from being achieved.

There are a few more things that might be considered a failing of universal design and thought of more as a universal problem. One of them is Clothes. Clothes are inherent for not being ‘one size fits all’. Buy one thing from a store in ‘your size’ and it still doesn't fit right, or you go to a different shop and buy the same labeled size but it is an altogether different fit. This is why tailors are a thing. They make alterations to fit each individual, sometimes having to make things entirely from scratch to give their customers the best fit possible. You want an example of universal design when it comes to clothes just look at the clothes you own. All the garments follow essentially the same generic human body shape pattern. Another example: How many look the same? Same pants, shoes, Haircut?... Nope not quite universal design, just really really good marketing...

What's another thing that is meant to be universal but just doesn't quite live up to expectations? How about our beloved meme content generators, also known as, Smart Assistants. Amazon’s Alexa, Google Home, Siri and I'm sure there are others. Out of the box they usually don't understand what we are saying, unless you have an exceptionally clear accent. This results in frustrated people and some funny moments for us to enjoy, but their work around for this is customization. You have to take the time to teach your assistant your voice so that it can interpret and understand what you are saying.

At the end of the day so long as people exist, there will always be things that need to be customized, leaving us as designers still very much in control of what we do for ourselves and others. What does this mean for the Principles? Well they can be in the background

Thanks for listening.

Some information gathered from HERE and HERE