From Design Foundations
The Empathetic Designer
How does design reduce exclusion?
Intermediate / 10 min
After this reading, you can turn empathy into accessible, inclusive decisions and test them with the people they affect.
Empathy in design is the practice of recognizing that your own experience is incomplete, then learning with the people affected by a decision. It is not a personality trait, an assumption about how another person feels or a workshop exercise that grants a designer authority to speak for them. Its value appears in what changes: who is included in research, which barriers become visible, what the team prioritizes and how the result is tested.
A designer can care deeply and still exclude people. Good intentions do not reveal whether a checkout works with a screen reader, whether a package can be opened with limited grip, whether a public service assumes fluent literacy or whether its price makes access unrealistic. Empathy needs evidence, participation and accountability.
Notice the limits of your view ↓ Learn with people in context ↓ Name barriers and unequal effects ↓ Change the design → Test together → Learn again
Learn without pretending to become the user
The aim of empathetic research is not to simulate another person briefly and conclude that you understand their life. A blindfold exercise, for example, may teach a sighted designer that an unfamiliar task is difficult while revealing little about the skills, tools and strategies of blind people. Direct participation by people with lived experience produces better evidence and a more honest relationship.
| Method | Useful for | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Contextual observation | Sequence, environment, workarounds and mismatches between a system and real activity | Consent, observer effects and interpreting behavior without checking your inference |
| Interview | Language, priorities, history, meaning and experiences that cannot be observed directly | Leading questions, hypothetical answers and treating one account as representative |
| Diary or photo journal | Experiences distributed across time and settings | Participant burden, privacy and gaps in what is recorded |
| Journey mapping | How barriers and emotions connect across stages and channels | Turning a synthesis into decorative certainty instead of linking it to evidence |
| Five Whys | Exploring possible causes beneath a visible problem | Forcing one linear root cause onto a social or systemic situation |
| Co-design | Giving participants material ways to frame priorities and shape possibilities | Inviting contribution after the consequential decisions are already fixed |
| Usability testing | Whether people can perceive, understand and operate a proposed experience | Testing only the easiest participants, devices or happy paths |
Recruitment is itself a design decision. If research includes only confident users with current devices, reliable connectivity, fluent language and flexible schedules, the evidence will make that group look universal. Include the people most likely to encounter barriers, compensate them fairly, make participation accessible and record which perspectives are still missing.
Connect empathy, accessibility and equity
These ideas overlap but are not interchangeable. Empathy is a way of learning and relating. Accessibility focuses on whether people with disabilities can access and use an experience. Inclusive design considers human diversity and seeks participation from people who are often excluded. Equitable design examines whether different groups receive fair access, benefit, safety, dignity and influence, recognizing that equal treatment can reproduce unequal outcomes.
| Lens | Primary question | Design consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Empathy | Where does our experience stop being reliable, and what must we learn from others? | Research changes assumptions and priorities |
| Accessibility | Can disabled people perceive, operate and understand this experience with their tools and strategies? | Requirements are designed, implemented and tested from the beginning |
| Inclusive design | Whose needs and ways of participating were treated as outside the default? | Human diversity informs the process and supports multiple ways to succeed |
| Equitable design | Who receives the benefits, burdens, risks and power to shape the outcome? | Resources and responses differ when that is necessary for fair participation |
| Universal design | Can one design serve the widest practical range of people without a separate or stigmatizing experience? | Broad usability is built into the core product while specific accommodations remain available |
Designing for a broad range does not mean claiming that one solution works for everyone. Needs can conflict, and some people require specialized tools or accommodations. A responsible team makes those limits visible and provides alternatives rather than allowing the imagined ‘average user’ to decide who is left out.
Make digital accessibility concrete
For web content, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines organize requirements under four principles: perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. The principles are a useful orientation, while conformance depends on testable success criteria. Automated checks can identify some failures, but they cannot replace inspection, assistive-technology testing and evaluation with disabled people.
| Principle | Question | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Perceivable | Can people receive the information through the senses and presentation available to them? | Text alternatives, captions, adaptable structure, sufficient contrast, resizable text |
| Operable | Can people navigate and act without depending on one input method or impossible timing? | Keyboard access, visible focus, adequate target size, alternatives to dragging, enough time |
| Understandable | Can people comprehend the content, controls and consequences? | Plain language, predictable patterns, clear labels, error prevention and correction |
| Robust | Can user agents and assistive technologies determine the content and control semantics reliably? | Semantic structure and programmatic names, roles, states and values |
Accessibility is broader than contrast and alt text. A visually clear form can remain unusable when focus order is illogical, an error is announced only by color, authentication demands a cognitive test or a control has no programmatic name. Conversely, accessibility and visual quality are not opposing goals. Hierarchy, readable typography, calm motion and clear feedback can improve both when they are implemented with the full range of use in mind.
Apply accessibility across domains
| Domain | Questions to investigate | Possible responses |
|---|---|---|
| Web and software | Can people navigate, understand status and complete tasks with different devices and assistive technologies? | Semantic structure, keyboard support, captions, text scaling, clear errors, reduced-motion support |
| Physical space | Can people enter, move, orient themselves, reach facilities and evacuate safely? | Step-free routes, appropriate clearances, tactile and legible wayfinding, usable restrooms |
| Products | What strength, reach, vision, hearing or dexterity does operation assume? | Alternative feedback, adjustable fit, lower operating force, distinguishable controls |
| Communication | Who cannot receive or understand the chosen format or language? | Captions, interpretation, transcripts, large print, audio, braille, plain language and translations |
| Services | Do identity, cost, time, location or documentation requirements prevent participation? | Multiple support channels, accessible appointments, flexible verification and transparent assistance |
Legal duties vary by jurisdiction and type of product, service or organization. WCAG is an international technical standard for web accessibility; it is not itself a universal law. Teams should identify the laws, procurement rules and standards that apply to their actual context while treating compliance as a floor rather than the full ambition of inclusive practice.
Case study: VoiceOver changes the mode of interaction
Apple’s VoiceOver is a screen reader built into its platforms for people who are blind or have low vision. On a touchscreen, it changes what gestures mean: moving focus lets a person hear an element and a separate action activates it, reducing the risk that exploration will trigger an unintended command. Spoken descriptions communicate text, control type and state; the rotor provides contextual navigation or settings; and braille support provides another way to read, navigate and enter text.
| Accessibility principle | VoiceOver capability | Responsibility of the product being read |
|---|---|---|
| Perceivable | Speaks content and presents it through compatible braille experiences | Provide accurate text alternatives and expose meaningful text and state |
| Operable | Supports gesture, keyboard and braille navigation across Apple devices | Create a logical order and ensure every action is available without sight or pointer precision |
| Understandable | Announces roles, values and changes; the rotor supports navigation by structures such as headings | Use descriptive labels, real headings, predictable controls and clear feedback |
| Robust | Interprets accessibility information supplied by the platform and application | Use native semantics or implement equivalent names, roles, states and values correctly |
VoiceOver cannot repair every inaccessible product automatically. An unlabeled button may still be announced without a useful name; a visual order that differs from focus order can remain confusing; custom controls can hide their state. Accessibility emerges from the platform, the authored experience and the user’s strategy working together.
Design for equity, not only broad averages
Equitable design asks what a product distributes. Who receives access, time, safety, privacy, dignity and benefit? Who carries cost, effort, surveillance or risk? A solution can be equally available in theory yet inequitable in practice when it assumes a current smartphone, a permanent address, one language, unpaid time, reliable transport or the confidence to challenge an institution.
| Consideration | Question for the team |
|---|---|
| Inclusion | Which abilities, ages, languages, cultures, genders and living conditions shaped the supposed default user? |
| Accessibility | Can disabled people participate independently and with dignity, including through assistive technology or accommodation? |
| Flexibility | Are there multiple workable ways to perceive information, act, communicate and receive support? |
| Affordability | Do price, device, data, travel or time costs exclude the people the service is meant to support? |
| Dignity and respect | Does the experience avoid stigma, coercion, unnecessary disclosure and patronizing assumptions? |
| Influence | Do affected people help frame the problem and evaluate trade-offs, or are they consulted only after decisions are made? |
Equity involves trade-offs rather than a checklist that makes disagreement disappear. Different groups may need different responses, and a team may lack the power or resources to address every structural cause. The ethical response is to make priorities and constraints explicit, protect people facing the greatest harm, partner with relevant communities and avoid claiming inclusion that the evidence cannot support.
Case study: OXO Good Grips began with a specific barrier
OXO’s Good Grips line began after Sam Farber noticed that his wife, Betsey, whose hands were affected by arthritis, struggled with a conventional metal peeler. Working with Smart Design, the team did not simply add an ‘accessible’ version beside an unchanged default. Research and prototyping led to kitchen tools with broad oval handles, softer non-slip gripping surfaces and forms intended to work across different hand strength, size and anatomy.
| Observed barrier | Design response | Broader lesson |
|---|---|---|
| Thin hard handles concentrate pressure and demand grip strength | A larger oval handle distributes force and is easier to hold | Examine the physical assumption built into the ordinary form |
| Wet utensils become difficult to control | A textured, non-slip elastomer surface improves security | Study the real environment, not only ideal use |
| Products for disabled or older people can be stigmatizing | The same considered product was offered to a broad market | Inclusive function can belong to the primary design rather than a segregated variant |
| One early concept cannot reveal the right geometry | The design process used research and repeated prototypes | A compassionate story still needs material testing and iteration |
The lesson is not that every specialized need automatically produces a universal solution. Good Grips is powerful because a specific barrier led to a better-tested mainstream object without erasing the user who revealed the problem. Other contexts will still require adaptations or purpose-built products.
Build an accountable practice
- Name who is affected by the decision, including people who may be excluded but are not current customers.
- Recruit people with relevant lived experience early enough to change the problem frame, requirements and budget.
- Make research and participation accessible, compensate contributors and obtain meaningful consent.
- Translate what you learn into explicit accessibility and equity criteria rather than a vague intention to be inclusive.
- Use established standards where they apply, then test the implementation with assistive technologies and people.
- Document conflicts, limitations and perspectives that remain absent instead of presenting a persona as complete truth.
- Return after launch: support records, complaints, usage and changing contexts can reveal exclusion that a study missed.
Avoid common empathy failures
- Do not confuse imagining a disability with learning from disabled people.
- Do not recruit one participant to represent an entire community.
- Do not use an empathy map to turn guesses about ‘thinks’ and ‘feels’ into facts.
- Do not postpone accessibility until visual design and engineering choices are difficult to change.
- Do not claim that one broadly useful feature has made the whole system equitable.
- Do not ask marginalized participants to provide legitimacy while withholding decision-making power.
The empathetic designer does not prove empathy by describing people warmly. They make the limits of their perspective visible, invite people into consequential decisions and remain responsible for the barriers the finished design creates. Accessibility and equity are where concern becomes observable—and where it can be tested.
Takeaway