Ageism at The Open

Reading the press coverage of The (British) Open this morning after, the sports writers and pundits are showing the ugly head of ageism right and left. Their reports are rife with phase like “his tired old bones,” “his age finally showed,” and even “old geezer.” Never mind that other players of much younger ages have blown final round leads of greater margins with poorer play. Never mind that leading The Open, or any other major tournament, on all four days is a seldom achieved event. Never mind that a certain great player of the day never even made the cut. And never mind that there is a whole cadre of golfers Watson’s age who play professionally week in and week out. I’m sorry, but playing 22 holes of golf is not beyond a fit 59 year old’s ability, and especially not a great athlete like we saw this weekend.

Sure, there are not many times when a professional athlete past their thirties plays at the top of their sport. Certainly age catches up with us. But to say that the only reason that Tom Watson lost was because he is “old” just shows how far we have yet to go before we treat age fairly, practically and without bias. Nothing was a more insidious reflection of this than the two announcers saying that it was nice Cink had won because he is young, and that if Tom had won, it would not have changed his life. Meaning: he’s just a washed up old man with not much life left. Wasn't it nice he got out for a good walk.

Of course it would have changed his life. He would have been remembered for doing what no one else had done, to seal that image he thirsts for still—to be remember as a truly great golfer. Achievements change our lives every day until we die. To say they don’t knocks the legs out from anyone who tries to live the latter years of their life with dignity, grace and purpose.

Of course, the apologists trot out the adage “age is just a number” which is just as idiotic as saying that Watson lost because of his age. Age is much more than a number. It's a reality, baby. It is a reality that each of us chooses to handle in our own way. Some of us retire to an easy chair, adding to our girth and our medical problems. Some of us become demoralized and withdraw. And some of us choose to adapt and keep doing what we love to do, as best we can. Racings cars, gardening, climbing mountains, cooking, running companies, writing, travelling, etc. We retrofit our bodies and our homes and keep living as we want to.

Tom Watson has adapted. He has had joint replacement. He has stayed fit. He has adapted his game and the courses he plays—links style golf suits him well, whereas by his own admission he hates the Masters because the course does not suit his game and he feels like an honorary golfer rather than a contender.

Adaptation is the key to aging well and Tom Watson has given us a rare glimpse into how it can work. He played extremely well for someone of any age. I won’t say that what Watson did was a great thing and he should feel good about it even though he lost. Sure, it was a great thing, no doubt. But losing is going to, in his words, tear at his gut. To say that he should be proud anyway is patronizing and ageist. I like Jack Nicklaus’s explanation that it wasn't age or being tired,but that missing the putt on 18, missing the chance to seize the Claret Jug then and there, very likely took the wind out of his sales and he didn’t recover from that. It’s the same thing that happens to many people in all sorts of situations and all walks of life. But it is part of choosing to live a rich life. Age does not defeat us as much as not caring, not engaging, and also not being realistic does.

And to say that he lost because of his age is not only a great disservice to Tom, it is a disservice to Stewart Cink, who won not because Tom is “old”, but because Cink fought back, gave himself a chance, and had the drive to treat Tom as an equal and a bona fide contender and do what he needed to slam the door on Watson’s chances to take another title. While I’m sure some thoughts about Tom’s stature and age crossed his mind, Cink was one person on the course who was not looking through the lens of ageism—he just competed. Any class of people who are not treated as equal suffers, and that applies to those who have a few years on the rest of us as well as anyone.

Cink’s competitiveness underscores the point that Watson has done a better job than most of adapting and staying fit and keeping motivated by what he loves. The more we all deal with our age in a manner that reflects Watson’s drive and spirit, the better off we all will be. Our company helps people every day who are doing the same in much smaller and less public ways, and it is a joy to see.

Ageism endeavors to make us less than we are. The sooner we see the back side of it, the better. How widespread it was this weekend was a sad state of affairs.

Reinforcing visitability as part of Universal Design

"My home does not hold anybody out." For some reason I had not come across this video from AARP before. I have to complement the team, it is a very nicely done video that really hits the key points. But I especially like the focus on visitability. If we are looking to create the optimal environment for aging in place, we have to remember our needs to socialize and maintain friendships. Socialization is critical for our emotional well being. Making it so our friends and family can visit is just as important in the long run as making it easier for me to do my ADLs so that I feel good about going out in the world. Hopefully we will continue to see more and more attention paid to visitablity by new home builders. In the mean time, companies like In Your Home regularly help people make their own homes better suited to this need.

The video is at http://tinyurl.com/nlpklj

Designs that are great for everyone.

To follow up on the last posts a bit, let's talk about the Moen Digital IO series of electronic shower valves and controls. These new valves put all the plumbing behind the wall except for a small control panel that can be placed anywhere in the shower area.

When we remodel showers, we often bring the shower controls to the front of the enclosure, so they are easier to reach for a caregiver or someone with a balance issue, or moving them to the back wall where they are convenient for a seated bather. This electronic controller would eliminate the need to all that additional plumbing, helping to reduce the complexity of the install (and offset some of the cost of the device.)

But you can even get them with a remote control. Moen says that it would allow you to turn on the shower from across the room, however I suspect that few people have such an open floor plan for that to make a lot of sense. However, it totally eliminates any concern about where the controls are placed. Someone with balance problems can start the shower without having to reach in, and no one needs to risk getting hit with a cold spray of water--you stand safely outside the shower, use the remote to turn it on, and step comfortably in. Whereas my old solution of locating the controls in the location that best fit the user with a limitation meant that the shower was only optimized for a single person. Now, inherent in the design is that it is optimal for every user.

This principle is taken further with the fact that the controls have 4 preset temperatures--one for each member of the family. Especially useful, for example, if you have MS and need to have a cooling shower. But it is a feature that is of wide use--my wife prefers much hotter showers than I do. While we have a thermostatic valve, with this device I would not have to readjust it every time I get in, I just hit the button corresponding to my setting.

There is even a pause function--which uses the universal "II" symbol that we see on video and music players.

I haven't spoken to the folks at Moen to see what their motivation for this design was. But to me it speaks of a innovation that is targeted to provide comfort and ease for all shower uses, and it just so happens that it will have an enormous impact on the ease with which a lot of folks who are less mobile than they used to be or who have a disability manage their ADLs.

Prices on these electronic controls have continued to decline, and while the Digital IO line is still a premium over a standard valve, it is much closer to the range at which it becomes affordable. As prices drop further, I think we will see such systems as the smart standard for our shower remodels.

Design evolution

Another set of thoughts on this theme is that as technologies and design evolve and mature, often this leads to a convergence that makes them more accessible to a wider variety of people. Certainly costs tend to decrease, making the designs more accessible. But abilities and general acceptability tend to expand as well, widening the appeal of newer iterations of a technology.

A case in point may be the evolution of what are now being called Personal Mobility Vehicles or PMVs. Today a PMV might be a scooter chair, a golf cart, or a Segway for the more adventurous. These devices are becoming ever more popular forms of transportation, either for those who lack the mobility to walk distances or for alternative forms of transport. In many retirement communities golf carts are a de facto alternative to a car. In fact, I recently read that about half the injuries on golf carts (they are rather unsafe vehicles) occur off the golf course.

Scooter chairs, on the other hand, are slower and therefore safer, but certainly have a stigma, are not always easy to manuever, and their size and limitations can sometimes make them a frustrating experience for both the rider and for ambulatory people who are sharing the sidewalk, common space, or kitchen.

Enter the modern PMV. One prototype is the Toyota i-swing. http://tinyurl.com/nv5zjz Read how it was described when displayed at the 2005 Toyota Motor Show: The single-person vehicle package boasts an individual design with a “wearable” feeling. Its low-resistance urethane body is covered in cloth to soften any impact while operating near people, and an LED illumination panel can be customized to display an image to suit your mood.When traveling in a bustling street full of people, the i-swing can operate in a two-wheeled mode that takes up little space, so that it is possible to travel while keeping pace and talking with someone on foot. When there is a need to move quickly, the i-swing can change to a three-wheeled mode, which is fun to travel in. In addition to the stick control, a pedal control can be used to provide a fresh cornering feeling, as you shift your body weight as if you were on skis.The i-swing proposes the concept of using A.I. communication to enable it to grow, learning the habits and preferences of users by storing relevant data about them.

Here, in one device, we have customization, adaptability for the user and compensatory systems (collision avoidance) so that I do not have to master a joystick to navigate safely. I have a design that is tolerant of the errors I make and sensitive to those around me.

This is another example of where application of smart design and UD principles result in a design that would be a better solution for wide range of people and applications than any of the current technologies. It's all just a prototype now, but clearly moving in a better direction, evolving the technology.

Design for the universe or the user?

I've had several good responses to my recent post on Universal Design. In particular Bill Shackleford made some good points about the derivative effects of design for accommodation.

I don't disagree that designs and technologies which start with the intent to accommodate limitations to abilities often spawn solutions providing much wider benefits. Nor am I saying that we should not try to design solutions for to help accommodate specific limitations. In fact, I have been working on a theoretical framework and typology for assistive technology that address just this dynamic. My goal is that if we better understand that at some level all technology is assistive and that its benefits can be leveraged to the greater good, we can make progress more quickly and efficiently.

But I was making a different point in my original blog. Foremost, I was saying that we do Universal Design a disservice when we only present it as a way of dealing with disabilities. When presented in the fashion, many in the mainstream will marginalize the message. And that works against creating a world with fewer barriers.

Second, Bill says:

There are many (MANY!) other examples of well designed products and systems in mainstream use that appear to have been 'universally designed', but in fact were initially targeted for persons with disabilities - to 'accommodate' them.

Certainly there are. But that is a statement of current reality, not necessarily the ideal process. If from the start we had addressed the needs that Bills examples address with an orientation toward how the solution could more widely benefit, we might have gotten to that end state sooner. And I would be willing to bet that there are many things designed to accommodate a disability that have fallen by the wayside because they were obviated by better designed, more universal solutions.

Scott Rains pointed out a term "inclusive design" and I like the phrase "user centered design" which is one that resonates with Bill's comment that he begins his design process thinking about his users, not design principles. But this points to an inherent tension--are we designing for a specific user, or users in general? If we are talking about a product where a person has a range of options or the ability to customize, I think that user centered design is the way to go. Or when it is a group of people for whom you have a clear insight about common usage patterns or abilities. However if we are talking about multi-use situations and public spaces or common areas, UD principles are undoubtedly something that should guide the process from the beginning.

All of this off course flows into what motivates people to actually innovate or design--maybe the best designs will always come from the individual desire to create something that solves a personal need or desire. But nothing in that is hurt by increasing an awareness that the best designs are at some level universally applicable.