Apps and Accessibility
People with chronic illnesses such as sensory processing anomalies and environmental sensitivities have traditionally been left out of the disability discourse and accessible design practices in the context of the built environment. What can we consider when designing for this space?
Dominant Framing of the Problem
Accessibility is often a key concern in the design of public spaces. However, accessibility concerns often do not consider people with chronic illnesses such as Lyme disease, sensory processing anomalies, and high environmental sensitivity. This makes it difficult for them to find public spaces that accommodate their specific needs. For example, people with a sensory processing disorder may find it difficult to find a public place with low levels of stimulation like noise, or those with inflammatory diseases might not always be able to find appropriate restrooms.
Mobile apps can offer some support to help people with chronic illnesses find accommodative public spaces. Using a crowdsourcing approach together with machine learning algorithms that draw from existing databases like Google maps and Yelp, an app can collect, filter, and display information about accommodations based on the unique needs or preferences of a wide variety of chronic illnesses. For example, it can contain an interactive map with pinned destinations and a sidebar with a list of spatial affordances that serve as filters such as “quiet space”, or “clean restrooms.” Given the wide variety of chronic illnesses, can crowdsourced mobile apps improve accessibility for people with chronic illness in public spaces?
People with a sensory processing disorder may find it difficult to find a public place with low levels of stimulation like noise, or those with inflammatory diseases might not always be able to find appropriate restrooms.
Concerns and Considerations
There are two primary concerns with this framing of the problem-situation: it assumes that the experiences of people in a place can be captured in a set of clearly defined categories, and it places the burden of accessibility on those who are chronically ill.
First, the filters on the app require one to classify places on the basis of clearly defined categories: such as “clean restrooms”, “quiet place”, or “options for lying down”. However, such categories can be difficult to trust as they can mean different things to different people—an area that is quiet for some may still be loud for others. It is inherently difficult to quantify or parameterize qualitative experiences. The same disease can manifest in different ways in different people, resulting in several unique experiences. For example, different people with Lyme disease are affected by different kinds of external stimuli. Further, places are also dynamic—they change over time. Areas that have low stimulation or have plenty of sitting options may not stay that way in the near future. All of these factors make it difficult, if not impossible, to develop meaningful categories about places for chronically ill people.
Second, the app, by virtue of being crowdsourced, depends on inputs by those who are chronically ill or knowledgeable about chronic illnesses. It makes it their responsibility to regularly identify, share, verify, and amend information about the environments of public places. This is problematic as incorrect information about places can go unchecked, which can endanger chronically ill people who use the app to decide where to go.
It is inherently difficult to quantify qualitative experiences. The same disease can manifest in different ways in different people, resulting in several unique experiences.
Reframing of the Problem
Given the above concerns, there are multiple ways to reframe the problem-situation. One approach would be support research and action into environmental change: “How can public spaces adapt to the varying needs of chronically ill people?” This would invite exploration into innovative techno-spatial designs. For example, can spaces be designed to have adjustable levels of audio/olfactory/visual-isolation from their surrounding areas to accommodate those with sensory processing disorders? Can parks provide portable defibrillators within their premises so that those with a chronic risk of heart attack can be accommodated?
Another approach would be to focus on communal/cultural change: “can we foster the development of more supportive communities and systems of care?” Given that chronic illnesses are so diverse and dynamic, it can be difficult to establish and maintain public spaces that are considerate of all possible needs. Instead, focusing on developing a broader community of care that helps people with chronic illnesses to be accommodated can be more sustainable in the long-term. For example, a local social network that connects those with chronic illnesses living in the same area with each other can help in the development of a community built on mutual care and support, which can extend to include the families and friends of chronically ill people with each other. This way, when one decides to visit a public space, they can reach out to their community members to help them be accomodated in that space, and can do the same for others.
