WEEK 9 - THE GREAT PDT DESIGN DEBATE

This week was The Great PDT Design Debate, which took place online via BigBlueButton, and it was an interesting 4 hours online lecture if I do say so myself. There were many interesting discussions in many different areas both for and against in each argument. As well as the interesting discussions, there were very interesting questions asked by the audience via the text based forum. The topic that my teammate and I discussed was 'One size does not fit all', and we were for this motion.

For each debate in this lecture, the team for the motion went first, then the team against, then the audience asked questions via the text based forum, and finally we had to answer a poll to vote whether we were for or against each debate. This decision was based on which side of the argument we thought gave the best points in their argument or which side of each argument we agreed with.

My Teammate - Adam Finnerty

Opposition - Eddie Hellewell and Patrick Geary

The script for the debate that my teammate and I carried out can be seen below.

Please feel free to comment your thoughts/opinions/if you agree or disagree.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBATE SCRIPT

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 are 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 labelled 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 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 will still be there in the background as they were and we shall carry on unchanged.

Thanks for listening.

Picture Reference:

Design Factors (n.d.) 'Product Design and Technology' [website] (Accessed 4th May 2020);

https://designfactors.ie/design-practice-education/product-design-technology

Research References:

1. Hoare, J. (2018) 'The Design Process isn't 'One-Size-Fits-All' Medium [blog] (Accessed 20th April 2020); https://medium.com/@jameshoareid/the-design-process-isnt-one-size-fits-all-3dd307be9501

2. University of Limerick (n.d.) 'Bachelor of Science in Product Design and Technology' [website] (Accessed 20th April 2020); https://www.ul.ie/courses/bachelor-science-product-design-and-technology