Addressing unanticipated consequences of innovation for people with a disability
Innovation is making access a reality for many people with a disability. Both small (incremental) and large (disruptive) innovations impact how we plan to make accommodations for diverse needs in the immediate and longer-term future.
One company investigating how to address the barriers caused by steps for personal mobility is Wheelstair. They have invested both time and expertise in developing an “attachment” to wheelchairs that allows them to “climb” stairs. They have produced 3 prototypes tested ISO standards and in the real world until now. The results suggest that the device can climb 20 floors in both directions, for people of different weights, with stairs from other materials, and slope. They are looking to take the technology from prototype to market, with some care taken to ensure safety and gather feedback from potential users. You can find out much more about the project and product at www.wheelstair.com to see their story and workshops with end-users.
For individuals with physical disabilities, an approach that is not dependent upon the action of each building owner is appealing; regardless of the owner’s willingness, access is guaranteed. Moreover, there is a great incentive for the building owners to encourage such investment. They would not need to retrofit existing buildings or make concessions to accommodations in new builds. But in practice, the decision is more complex.
The costs of making a building accessible to a wheelchair user are not related only to usage by the wheelchair user. The same accommodations have significant benefits to others. Hence, the social return on the investment needs to be calculated based on all those who benefit from universal design.
The challenge in making such calculations is how can we gauge such wider use. This has sometimes been described as a situational disability (created by the circumstances), impacting a wider community. We are faced with the potential to choose between investments in accomodating one person’s needs across many locations versus creating individual accessible settings. This may be a variation of an impairment-based approach instead of a social model of disability. In the latter example, the social or universal approach benefits those who are using wheelchairs and also those who are ageing or infirm, with young children, including those in buggies and those trying to manage bags and luggage that are heavy and unwieldy. The benefit from the investment pervades across a much wider population than simply those using the adapted chairs.
Experience from accessibility within the digital realm suggests that we need both approaches. We need to create a fertile and accessible environment where the innovative AT can be best used. We should welcome the innovation that Wheelstair and others offer. The advanced technology will make access easier for those who have it available. But, innovation in personal technology is not a reason to reject investment in universal design. Our experience teaches us that access is generated when both work in sync. As a result, when we consider the costs and benefits of innovation, it may be a mistake to think that the investment will mean we no longer need to invest in accessible infrastructure and settings.
