The Influence of Context on Product Judgement – Presenting Assistive Products as Consumer Goods

According to the ISO definition, any product can be assistive, though usually products that are considered to be assistive are those which are specially designed to improve the functionality of a person with disabilities (World Health Organization, 2001). The problems with these specifically designed devices are the commonly mentioned discontinuance in use and abandonment. Lack of information on the correct use of assistive products (AP), changes in users’ preferences, shame, and inadequacy of APs in the home environment were identified by Gitlin and Schemm (1996) as reasons for the abandonment of APs by elderly people. In their literature review on meanings attributed by people to APs and the ways in which these influence APs’ adoption, Pape, Kim and Weiner (2002) concluded that, at times, social concerns (e.g. stigma) have a greater weight on the decision to use APs than the improvement of functionality they foster. According to Goffman (1986), APs are often associated with some depreciative characteristics, causing AP users to feel stigmatized by society. Within the broad range of APs are the specific devices designed for very specific impairments, but there are also “daily living aids” which are those products that help people to accomplish everyday tasks such as opening a jar, peeling vegetables or combing hair. Everyday tasks are referred to as Activities of Daily Living (ADL), while the most basic – e.g. eating, dressing or bathing – are called Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL). The performance on these BADL is used in healthcare to measure one’s degree of dependence (Katz, Down, Cash, & Grotz, 1970; Mahoney & Barthel, 1965), i.e. the degree of one’s capacity for self-care (Holbrook & Skilbeck, 1983). Here, then, lies the great importance of fighting the abandonment of APs that assist the performance of BADL, for they are crucial to the improvement of individual independence. Beyond their importance in boosting independence, daily living aids are also considered to be the type of APs with the greatest chance of entering the mainstream market (Coleman, 2006). The reason for this is that these products are the most useful to most people (either with or without disabilities) and are the most likely to be used by them. The design of these products is also likely to involve an inclusive approach which is not possible with APs designed for more specific disabilities, or APs which are custom-made to meet very specific needs. Næss and Øritsland (2005) argue for an inclusive design approach to product development, bearing in mind product semiotics and affordances, noting that “by definition, mainstream ORIGINAL ARTICLE