Fantastic! I especially like that it was led by a disabled person. In my (rather extensive) experience, disability tech developed by non-disabled people never quite meets the needs of the disabled person. I much rather see disability tech developed by disabled people themselves.
It's a more deep question than it appears. Tech changes, society changes, and like anybody, disabled people find their own needs & wants change over time. Non-disabled people develop some sort of aid and move on, and the tech stays stuck in the past, as I have seen all too often. When the tech is disabled-led & developed, they own it and can tweak / improve over time, with a greater awareness of where the low-hanging fruit is.
Furthermore, when a non-disabled person or team develops it, they get the funding, the publicity, and the career boost for developing a likely inadequate solution & move on to other things. When it's disabled-led, the disabled dev rightfully gets the funding, kudos, & career boost, and can use that as a springboard to greater things, while remaining invested in continuous updating of the aid tech because it's part of their daily life.
It's a more deep question than it appears. Tech changes, society changes, and like anybody, disabled people find their own needs & wants change over time. Non-disabled people develop some sort of aid and move on, and the tech stays stuck in the past, as I have seen all too often. When the tech is disabled-led & developed, they own it and can tweak / improve over time, with a greater awareness of where the low-hanging fruit is.
Furthermore, when a non-disabled person or team develops it, they get the funding, the publicity, and the career boost for developing a likely inadequate solution & move on to other things. When it's disabled-led, the disabled dev rightfully gets the funding, kudos, & career boost, and can use that as a springboard to greater things, while remaining invested in continuous updating of the aid tech because it's part of their daily life.
