It’s challenging, if harmful, to pursue one universal model to guide how we think about all humans.

Technology has a lot to learn from humans. In particular, from humans who have a deep understanding of mismatched interactions.

One way to start is by building an extended community of “exclusion experts” who contribute to your design process. These are people who experience the greatest mismatch when using your solution, or who might be the most negatively affected. Develop meaningful relationships with communities that contribute to a design. Designing with, not for, excl

Inclusive design doesn’t mean you’re designing one thing for all people. You’re designing a diversity of ways to participate so that everyone has a sense of belonging.3

We need designers who have experienced barriers. What we want to produce is not a uniform set of individuals with specific competencies, but a group of individuals that can work as a team, that each can contribute a diverse perspective.2

importantly, Jutta Treviranus and her team at Ontario College of Art and Design. Treviranus founded the Inclusive Design Research Centre in 1993 to focus on ways that digital technology can improve societal inclusion.

An exclusion habit is the belief that whoever starts the game also sets the rules of the game. We think we don’t have power to change a game, so we abdicate our accountability.

The problem comes when there’s a mismatch between the stated purpose of a design and the reality of who can use it.

We expect people to be unfair. People are fallible and prone to faults. Yet we expect technology to be impartial. Maybe it doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to, but we tend to believe that inanimate objects are largely unbiased.