A lens for designing with people who are often stigmatized, vulnerable, or overlooked — asking not just whether a design works, but whether it protects someone's dignity while it does.
Compassionate Design, as framed by Seshadri, Joslyn, Hynes & Reid (2019), looks at products built for people in difficult or stigmatized circumstances — amputees, refugees, sick children, people experiencing poverty — and asks what separates the designs that quietly humiliate the people they're meant to help from the ones that restore some control and self-respect. Two products can solve the same technical problem and land completely differently on this scale.
These are the three qualities the framework asks you to protect or restore, especially for people who have little say in what gets designed for them.
Does the design treat the person as a full, capable person — or does it visibly mark them as a problem to be managed? Appearance and framing matter as much as function.
Does the design give someone more control over their own life and choices, or does it make decisions for them? Compassionate design hands agency back.
Does the design account for the specific risks and fears of the situation it's used in — physical safety, social exposure, emotional distress — not just the average case?
Images to come for each. These three get the full problem / response / why-compassionate treatment in class; nine more cases are covered by student jigsaw pitches (listed below).
Three questions to ask about anything you're building, especially if it's meant for someone in a vulnerable or difficult situation.
Does this mark the person using it as someone with a problem, or does it treat them as a capable person, full stop?
Does this give the person more control over their situation, or does it quietly take decisions away from them?
What is this person specifically afraid of or at risk from — and does the design actually address that, or just the average case?
Seshadri, Joslyn, Hynes & Reid, "Compassionate Design" (2019).