- Hey guys, welcome to another Double Tap on YouTube. I am Steven Scott. - And I am Shaun Preece. Hello, - Shaun, what does design for everyone mean to you? - Wow. Start off with the easy ones. Throw me under the bus. But it's something we've talked about before about being, is there such a thing as fully accessible? What does that even mean? Can anything even be fully accessible and used by everyone? Inclusive design? It's really complicated, actually. - Yeah, it is. And, you know, it's a challenge for companies. What do they do? How do they get it right for everybody? Does a solution that maybe works for someone who's blind also work for someone who's low vision? These are challenges. And, you know, this coupled alongside my issue that I've been talking about for a long time, which is innovations that are coming along that are essentially, it feels anyways as if they're not engaging enough with the disability community, so it's therefore products are being created that might look good, that might work really well for some people, but not a lot of people. But only work well in the minds of the developers and not the people who are using them. That's becoming a problem. Anyway, all of this is something that is the subject of an article by Rebecca Rosenberg. You might remember Rebecca, she was on with us recently. We were talking about Vision Pro with her. She's behind the app ReBokeh, she's the CEO of the company that makes that, and she's also a technology advocate. She's low vision, and she's got quite a story to tell of her own. But today's story, I think, is quite interesting. Rebecca, great to have you back with us here on Double Tap. - Absolutely. Happy to be here again. It was great to chat with you the first time, and excited to expand on some of the things we talked about. - Well, that's the point. There was so much that we talked about, and I thought, "Goodness me, we could talk so much more." But then, another article comes out, you gotta stop doing this because you'll be on here every week if you keep this up. But you came up with this article talking about, and the way I read the headline of this, and it's like anything else. When you read a headline and then you actually get into the substance, it is quite different. I was kind of hearing from the article, this is all about making assistive tech more sexy, more appealing to people. But then, as I read into the article, I realized what you're kind of looking for is that design for everyone approach that people talk about to be something which is a bit more meaningful than just words. Actually designed for everyone and don't leave people out. Am I reading into that article right? - Yeah, you know, I think part of what I was trying to touch on was, and I'll expand based on some more recent experiences. You know, I spend a lot of time at these assistive technology conferences, and they're all of these startups built of incredible people who care so much about accessibility and assistive technology who are backed by investors and funders who care and who want to see technologies for the disability population come to be. And then you find that all of these people, all of these resources are going towards these tools that are, you know, they look sexy, but when you dive into them, it's kind of, it's almost kind of silly. It's like somebody who is blind doesn't necessarily wanna be vibrated from their chest by a guidance device any more than somebody who doesn't have a vision impairment is gonna wanna be vibrated from their chest. And you know, this, I think what what we've done at ReBokeh, and what we have seen really work is using technology and tools that people are already comfortable with and already kind of know how to use that makes technology that's truly stable but maybe isn't quite as sexy or futuristic looking, but is really, really usable here and now as opposed to kind of some of these other devices that are really big, really tech-forward, and oftentimes cumbersome because of that. And there's just all these resources going into these things that, at the end of the day, we oftentimes find that people with disabilities don't actually want. - Well, you've strayed into an area where we've been talking about this on the show quite a lot. It's no wonder you're laughing, Shaun, because, you know, as I'm reading the article, Rebecca, I'm thinking you and I are so much on the same page here because I am with you on this 100%. I mean, we've been talking a lot on the show recently about navigation aids and how there are some navigation aids that seem to come out of the blue by well-meaning people, and I mean that, well-meaning good people. But the idea, it either hasn't been passed along to any blind people around them. And I'm just using navigation aids for blind people as one example. There are millions of others, I'm sure. But you know, this is a situation where you have a product that comes along and you think to yourself, "Goodness, this is potentially amazing." But they haven't clearly engaged with anyone, so the idea hasn't been thought through. And there was one example where a product for blind people to be used outdoors couldn't work in the rain. And I kind of feel someone just missed something really important there. Like, "Oh yeah, we're using it outside," so suddenly we're spending thousands of dollars on something to essentially beta test a product, but at our cost, and I'm not for that. - Yeah, and, you know, I think one thing that I say in the article is that it's not that disabled people are not involved at some point. The problem is that they're being used as validation points to sell a product- - That's interesting. - instead of as as crucial stakeholders at the earliest stages of development. Like, someone, I imagine that if somebody with a disability had been involved there earlier, they would've said, "Blind people go out in the rain. Like, this has to work"- - You'd like to think so, right? - "in the rain." Yeah, or, you know, coming back to this vibration example, and I really am not thinking of a specific company. I think there's a number of them that are doing this right now. But, like, somebody with a disability, you know, would probably say, "Hey, this is kind of uncomfortable. This is, like, a lot of just, like, general stimulation for me to be dealing with." But instead of that early-stage feedback on these technologies, we're waiting until they're millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars into development before somebody with a disability is getting their hands on it. And then it's like, "Okay, say something nice about it into the microphone." - Hmm. - And we're getting these, like, validation points instead of these things that we're co-designed. - Now that's what Steven says quite a lot on this subject, particularly about, you know, replacing the white cane or the guide dog. I find it really difficult to believe that is the case, though. I totally understand your point about using disabled people's validation points, about hey, how great this is, right? About even maybe the concept, but do you really believe that there is no consultation or any partnership even with disabled people at the design stage itself? - I really don't want to believe that that's the case. I really want to believe that there are... So, I mean, my background is in biodesign. It's sort of in this, how do you do this properly? How do you design with all of the stakeholders in mind? And I would just, I really, I mean, I hope and pray that this isn't the case, but sometimes you look at what comes out of this and you say, "How did we get here? Like, how did we end up with something that can't be used in the rain?" - Yeah, yeah. - I don't know. - Exactly. - I don't know. - And look, again, and I say this time and time and time again on my show because I get angry emails from people saying, "You are pushing back on great innovation. You're almost saying let's not innovate in this space." I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is engage with disabled people first at the early stages and not one or two disabled people. And this touches on another important point in your article, I thought was something is almost a quiet part out loud. And this is what I love about doing this show, Rebecca, because we do tend to say the quiet part out loud, which is the important bit. And you talk about the design for everyone approach, which we hear a lot about when you hear a product saying it's designed for everyone, it's accessible to everyone. What is fully accessible? That is the question. What might work for me, as someone who is blind, might not work for you, who's someone who's low vision, right? And these are important distinctions. - Yeah, and it's something that we've run into a lot with ReBokeh is that, you know, there are not a lot of products, really if any, designed specifically for people with moderate low vision, people like me who have some amount of functional vision and who want to be able to use that. And the number of times that I have had to tell stakeholders no, you know, we're not going to build in this feature or we're not going to have, you know, OCR on from the beginning. Because sometimes, by making something fully accessible for a group, you are almost, by definition, not making it accessible to a different group. And I think that that's really hard to say, and it's really hard to, I mean, as somebody who cares about the visually impaired community on a whole, it's hard to say, you know, "Hey, ReBokeh's really meant for this specific population that is not served by anything." And as a result of that, it might not be totally accessible to someone who is, who is totally blind, but it's making a world of difference for a different population who has really almost no other options. - It's a fine line to tread, though, isn't it? Because the argument would be then, "Oh, well, this app isn't meant for disabled people, so, you know, it is meant for that particular demographic." - But that's not what Rebecca's saying. That's not what she's saying. - Yeah, but as soon as you say, "You know what? We're gonna make this tailored towards a certain, let's say, low vision, and we're gonna focus all our strength on that." That is exactly what you're saying, isn't it? What's the difference between a mainstream developer saying, "You know what? We're not going to bother with any accessibility because it's not aimed at that market." - No, I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that because I, well, and I'm sorry I'm speaking for you, Rebecca, but I'm just annoyed. - No, wait, Rebecca can answer. - Speaking on your behalf. No, no, I mean, here's my thing. What I'm hearing from Rebecca, and, you know, you'll tell us in a second, but, you know, what I'm hearing is that we're building something here which works for a specific group of disabled people. And this is, I mean, you could argue that about braille, right? You could say, "Well, braille is for blind people who use braille," but you know, does that mean that everybody can use it? No, that's okay, though, right? - I think that it has to be done with empathy and with intention. I think a lot of times, I guess to your point, which is a fair point about, isn't that the same as, you know, a regular technology company just saying this isn't meant for disabled people, so we're not building in any accessibility. I think the difference is that that isn't coming from a place of empathy or consideration most of the time. Most of the time. - Yeah. - I think the way that we are at least trying to do it is from a place of empathy and consideration and recognizing that something that includes and is full of features that are what we call kind of vision replacement features. So things like door detection or OCR that's on immediately make it more difficult and actually less accessible for a population that has almost no accessibility options available to them, no vision enhancement accessibility options. So I see where you're coming from. I totally hear you. But I think the difference is that empathy, that consideration, and, you know, looping us all the way back around, you know, the testing with people with disabilities, making sure that I'm not just making these decisions for the low vision community or my company isn't just making these decisions for the low vision community, but that we are informed from the earliest stages of our technology by people with low vision, by teachers of the visually impaired, by low vision technology specialists, and optometrists and ophthalmologists. They were all involved well before ReBokeh was ever released to make sure that those things we thought we were doing to make it specifically useful for one disability population that has no other options, that we were actually doing that well. - And before Steven jumped down my throat there, I did say it's a fine line to walk. I wasn't saying that was a wrong decision, but I was just saying, I can hear people right now saying a similar argument, you know? And yeah, I mean, is it, the basic question is, is it okay to say that? And do we feel almost cautious about saying, "You know what? I'm gonna focus on this particular subset, if you like." - It has absolutely been a challenging conversation. But I think the other way, kind of to Steven's point, is also true. Like, when I go somewhere and I ask for accessibility options, and they're like, "Well, we've got braille, or you can listen to it on an audio device." Like, well, that's not accessible to me. I, you know, I asked to learn braille when I was in school, and they told me no. They said, "Your vision's too good. We're not gonna utilize the resources to teach you braille." - Yep. - Yep. - And so, I mean, it works the other way too, and for some reason, it's okay in the other direction. And so I'm just, I think, you know, we're trying to almost normalize it in the direction of focusing specifically on low vision as its own disability category. - Everything you're saying today, Rebecca, I feel like my validation points card is being filled up as we go here, and I'll be able to buy a Tesla by the time this interview is over. - I'll take one. - Okay, fine. We'll use our validation points for that, okay? But here's the thing, you know, it's interesting to me, and everything you talk about resonates. I mean, you know, you talk about being, essentially, the only disabled person in the room sometimes when it comes to these conversations. I too, I was approached by an airline website for advice, and I was asked about testing a website for a screen reader. And in the session, I asked, "How many blind people are you talking to?" And they said, "You." And I thought, "Wow, really? I'm the only person you've come to to ask this question?" Because, you know, my experience of a screen reader was fairly new at that time. And I said to 'em, "You probably want to get some experienced people in the room and also inexperienced people in the room with screen readers, because then you get a sense of what happens when something doesn't work well." A good example, an equivalent to that, would be anybody who uses a computer might say, "Well, I'm not sure how to use this website." You know, you have to design for them as well. But, of course, you know, it's interesting, we talked about all this, but there is a sense sometimes people feel that we're pushing back on innovation. I would argue the opposite. I would say that what you've done with ReBokeh, and what other people are doing with apps, especially apps that you can essentially build something for a subset of a population, or a group, or whatever it might be. I think that's actually really powerful. It opens the door to innovation, in my view. - Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, we're not pushing back on innovation. We're just holding innovators in our space to the same high standard that innovators in the wider world are held to. If you build a product for the general public, you know, I think of, and again, not to call out a company, but I think of those, like, biodegradable, like, store shopping bags that just melt when they get wet. You know, like that, that flopped, and it was funny in that situation, but, you know, the general public holds innovators to a standard of creating innovations that make sense, and that are user-tested, and that are backed by information from the target audience. And I think that that's all we're asking for in the disabled population is the same, is the same type of involvement from the earliest stages. I think it's so easy for, especially kind of early stage startups, you know, myself being one of them, to say, "Hey, you know, we're gonna put a blindfold on some students and let them walk around for a day and experience what it's like to be blind." And then, you know, we have a generation of kids who think that they kind of get it and it's not their fault. It's not, you know, I'm not blaming anybody, but it does cause challenges when I think we have all of these people who sort of think that they get what a disability is like, but actually don't, which is part of the reason that I often struggle when people say, "Hey, you know, we don't understand how you see, I think it would be a really strong part of your pitch if you could show the audience what it's like to look through your eyes, what it's like for you to see." And I tend to push back on that because I think that in no world am I ever going to do justice to my experience, and I'm actually doing more harm, not only to my audience but to the visually impaired population on a whole, by giving you an inauthentic Vaseline on the camera lens. Now I am calling out a company. You know, experience of vision impairment. I think that that really is to the detriment of everybody. - Can I just, in my search to get more validation points here, I wanna know, I often- - He's so needy. - I am very needy. I'm very needy, and I want a Tesla. I have a question about that very topic of simulation. Because I want to, and I wanna put this to you specifically, and you'll know why in a second, but I wanna ask you, because I say this often, in often situations, I say to people, "Take the word blind out, and put some other group in." So if someone said to you, for example, "Okay, I don't really understand," if I said this to you, "What's it like to be a woman." Perhaps if you dressed me in a skirt and threw me into a city center on a Friday evening, would I get the experience of what it's like? Would that be a good idea? To me, that's the same thing as saying, "Hey, you know, put on a pair of glasses that simulate vision loss, and that's it. You've got it. You understand it now." We could have solved so many of the world's issues by following that example, couldn't we? - Yeah, I mean, I think that you're spot on. I think you can't, you know, you put lipstick on a pig and it's not, you know, it's not a woman. - Especially this face. - Sorry, that was a weird metaphor. - He already wanted to put a skirt on. Now you're putting lipstick on him. - Now I've got lipstick on. Goodness me. - I'm taking it one step further. - Stressing that. - Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think that you're absolutely correct, and I not to say that similar- - I'm not being, sorry, I'm not being flippant with that. I'm really not being flippant about that. - No, no. I know. I think that there is some value in an exercise like that done with the right audience, given the right context as well as the correct debrief. But the vast majority of the time, we are minimizing the experience of the person who is living that reality. And we are at the same time doing a disservice to an audience that now thinks that they get it, and they don't necessarily get it. Chances are they probably don't get it. And it just, I think, perpetuates this sort of not-great cycle of disability representation. I think it's about the context, a good simulation, and a proper debrief to explain that that simulation is one aspect. Sort of like drunk goggles when you're, you know, teaching high school kids how to not drunk drive. - Yeah, no, I think you're right. And I think we've all seen those programs where someone is put into a situation of, you know, being in someone else's shoes, whether it's through makeup or whatever it may be. And it's great entertainment, and it's great almost, you know, it's great to see other people's experience and how they're perceived by other people, but it is just a one glance at someone's whole life, right? And you can't get that whole experience in that bite-sized little thing, but it depends what you are trying to get from it. You're absolutely right. - Can I just ask you, Rebecca, about, just going back to the sort whole conversation around design for everyone, essentially. - Yeah. - How do you deal with big companies like the Apples, the Googles, the Microsoft of the world, because they are obviously building products, and Amazon is another example of this, where they're building products for everyone, okay? So they're building products which have those accessibility features built in. Do you think they're doing enough, or do you think that they are also too, at the risk of perhaps helping some people and not other people? Or do you think they're getting the balance right? Where are the big companies sitting? - I think that they're trying, and I think that they are bringing awareness to the challenges faced by people with disabilities. And I commend and appreciate them for that. I think the challenge becomes, and I was talking to somebody about this recently, sort of regarding, and I won't call out a company again, regarding the sort of magnifier-ish app for one of these companies that appears to be what we described as a dumping ground for fun little computer vision tests that they had done. They kind of didn't know what to do with some of these features that they had built that maybe aren't perfect. And so this magnifier app just gets that that's where those projects go to sort of zombify, 'cause they're kind of already dead. - What a wonderful way to put it. And I think we all know exactly what you're talking about, which is kind of almost brilliant in a way because you're right, there's that . It is difficult, though, isn't it, for companies, I get it. Because they're trying to make sure that they are ticking the boxes and making sure that they are creating products that are meaningful and usable by all. But there's always that risk of them falling short. And maybe the answer is what you are doing, you know? The kind of work you're doing, the small startups actually creating apps that do fulfill the need properly. And maybe it shouldn't be entirely, there should be a sort of a base level of accessibility functionality built into a device, and then it really is up to individuals to go off and create. I mean, a good example is the calculator in the iPad. Everyone's saying, "Why hasn't Apple created a calculator for the iPad?" Something we might see at the next event. And Apple have come out recently and just said, "Well, because we didn't really think we needed to make one. We thought, you know, a developer will pick one up and make one, surely. What's gonna be different to our calculator?" I think that's a good point, actually. - Yeah, I mean, and I think coming back to my initial conversation about, you know, in our particular case, we are designing very specifically for people with low vision, people who want to make the most of the vision that they have instead of defaulting away from it. And by definition, you know, we have to say no to some features that support an audio-only experience, and that makes it all the more accessible for somebody like myself. And I think that is a luxury that we have. That is something that I can come on here and say that Apple could not ever say. They have to include all of those features. And by doing so, they're sometimes making things actually less accessible for kind of these in-between populations. And I just don't think that's something they'll ever be able to overcome just due to their size. - Rebecca, I could talk to you all day. Honestly, I love having you on the show. You've gotta come back on again because I'm sure we'll talk more about this. But I also wanna say, you know, good on you for standing up for the low vision community because we talked about this last time. It's a community that I was part of for a long time, I struggled in. - Oh, boy. - Because I always felt like I was never sighted enough to be with the sighted guys. Never blind enough to be with the blind guys, stuck in the middle. And everyone sort of pulling from each side, saying, "Hey, come with us. Hey, come with us." Or, actually, "Don't come with us, and don't come with us." Which was actually more common. Or maybe that was just me. But anyway, either way, thank you so much for doing what you do. Go check out the ReBokeh app, full details in our show notes. But Rebecca Rosenberg, always good to speak to you. Thank you for taking time out of what I'm sure is a very busy day for you. Thank you for being here. - Thank you for having me. Always great to be on. - And that's it for another Double Tap on YouTube. Thank you, Shaun. - No problem. Wasn't she great? I mean, what an interesting conversation. - Absolutely. Well, I'd love to hear people's comments on all of this. I can only imagine there'll be a few. - Yes. - Another feedback episode, I think, is around the corner. Thank you so much to Rebecca for coming on back on our first episode since holiday. Great to have you back with us again as well. Keep those comments coming, email us feedback at doubletaponair.com, and you can find us online as well, doubletaponair.com, where you can catch up with all of our episodes and stories we cover on the daily show as well. We'll catch you next time. Thanks Shaun. - Thank you. Bye-bye.