Why Is Inclusion Always 'Off' by Default? It’s Time to Flip the Switch

In today’s world, adaptability is often framed as something that people with disabilities need to do to "fit in" with the world around them. But what if we’ve been thinking about this wrong? What if, instead, those who don’t experience the disadvantages imposed by current designs—the non-disabled—are the ones who need to adapt?

The Myth of "Adaptation"

Unfortunately, we’ve placed the burden of adaptation on individuals with disabilities, expecting them to find ways to make the world work for them. However, in reality, the design and infrastructure need to change to eliminate the barriers that create disadvantages in the first place. The question isn’t how individuals with disabilities should adapt to a world that doesn’t account for their needs—it’s how society, as a whole, can adapt to ensure that all people can live, work, and play without barriers.

Even when the design and infrastructure are accessible, society must adapt and change its mindset. Just because a building, a product, or a service has been made accessible doesn’t mean that the people using it will automatically embrace it or know how to navigate it. A welcoming attitude and an inclusive culture are essential to making accessibility effective. It’s about fostering a mindset shift where inclusivity is part of the day-to-day fabric of society, not just something people have to adjust to when forced to.

Accessibility Is Always "Off" By Default

One key challenge in designing for inclusivity is that accessibility is often treated as a feature that can be toggled on or off depending on a person’s needs. However, accessibility should never be an afterthought or something "turned on" only when required. Right now, accessibility is often set to "off" by default, meaning that a significant portion of the population is excluded from the start. The real question is: Why is this the default, and how can we shift the paradigm?

This oddity extends to digital platforms as well. When setting up a meeting and requesting accessibility features—such as closed captioning or sign language interpretation—it’s common for these settings to default back to the non-accessible version. Whether this is due to a coding issue or the programmer's mindset, it raises a crucial question: Why is it assumed that the accessible features are a one-time request? Why should the system reset to the "normal" version of the meeting rather than remembering that inclusion is the baseline? This mindset reinforces the idea that accessibility is an add-on or an exception, not a standard.

A Culture of Exclusion: Is It Unintentional?

By defaulting to exclusion, society has created a culture that inadvertently marginalizes individuals with disabilities. The system wasn’t designed with inclusion in mind, which means non-disabled people often don’t think about the exclusionary consequences of these designs. This default setting absolves people of any culpability, as it’s not necessarily their fault that the system is functioning this way. However, individuals need to question why such settings exist and how they contribute to a broader culture of exclusion.

This is a perfect opportunity for introspection. When we examine our own cognitive biases, we can spot similar biases in the systems we operate within. Biases are often unspoken and unnoticed—particularly when they align with our experiences or comfort zones. But this self-awareness can be powerful. It allows us to recognize and address these biases within the system, not just in ourselves. By questioning why exclusion is built into our daily lives, we can all become active participants in transforming the system into one that prioritizes inclusion.

The Example of Movie Theaters: Captioning by Default?

Take movie theaters, for example. Nearly every theater has the technology to provide closed captioning, but in most cases, it’s not turned on by default. Instead, deaf and hard-of-hearing moviegoers are forced to wait for a segregated viewing time or are asked to use a device that provides a rudimentary captioning experience. Why is captioning seen as something that only applies during specific screenings rather than being universally available for every showtime?

The idea of captioning should not be treated as a special request but as a basic feature that’s simply part of the experience. Why can’t we normalize having captions available all the time? Why can’t we make it a default setting and allow everyone to get comfortable with the concept? Most people won’t even notice it’s there unless they need it, and it would create a more inclusive environment for all. It's easier to have inclusion turned on by default and allow people to pick and choose the features they want rather than having it off by default, and nobody ever realizes that the feature was offered in the first place.

The Example of Running Boards: A Design for One, but a Discomfort for All?

Another example is running boards on trucks and SUVs. These are designed to help people on the shorter spectrum access their vehicles, which makes sense. But for taller individuals who don’t rely on them, they can create an awkward experience. These taller drivers may need to step further out, bypassing the running board altogether, which isn’t always intuitive.

Rather than imposing a design based on what is comfortable for some, tall individuals could adapt and relearn how to enter the vehicle comfortably. The real issue isn’t that the running board exists but that it is designed with an assumption that everyone should adapt to it rather than considering how others can adapt to the design. This is a perfect example of how inclusivity isn’t just about making things easier for some—it’s about finding ways to make everyone feel comfortable without imposing limitations based on assumptions about who might need what.

Can We Change Our Cultural Attitude?

Inclusion should be the default setting—period. This isn’t about forcing people to use features they don’t need; it’s about allowing people to pick and choose the features that work for them. We live in an age where customization and personalization are at the forefront of technology, so why shouldn’t accessibility be a part of that?

Imagine a world where inclusion wasn’t something that had to be requested or "added" on; instead, it was simply part of the fabric of design. People could turn off features that are only relevant to them rather than adapting to a system that was never designed with them in mind.

Inclusion as the Default

The shift to an inclusive, adaptable culture requires us to rethink how we approach accessibility—moving from a reactive, disability-centered mindset to a proactive, human-centered mindset. It's about building a world where people with disabilities don’t have to fight for access but can live their lives as easily as anyone else. It’s about allowing everyone to choose the best experiences and features for them; it seems like a no-brainer to me. Doesn't it?