Why do we dismiss certain user types as “edge cases”?
By: Denis Boudreau
Tags: UX, Design, Accessibility, Inclusion, Disability

One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to inclusion in the digital space typically occurs when I discuss website redesigns with members of a cross-functional team, or strategic plans to build out accessibility roadmaps with business stakeholders. At some point or another, almost invariably, someone who’s otherwise well-intentioned will refer to the needs and expectations of people with disabilities as being just another series of edge cases.

I’ll tell you right off the bat, the words “edge cases” just make my skin crawl.

What these people mean by that, of course, is simply that the particular needs of people with disabilities relate to unlikely situations that are pretty far from what would otherwise be considered a direct or obvious business priority. Their focus automatically goes to the expected effort needed to make their content accessible, as opposed to the benefits of including more people in the conversation. Designing a product so that it works well for a potential client makes sense when that particular client represents your average typical user, but what happens when that same potential client (let’s call him John), turns out to be visually impaired, deaf, or dyslexic?

Designing a product so that it works well for a potential client makes sense when that particular client represents your average typical user, but what happens when that same potential client (let’s call him John), turns out to be visually impaired, deaf, or dyslexic?

All of a sudden, John no longer fits within the parameters of what you would call “normal”. Yet John is still, in every other aspect, a perfect representation of your target audience. John just also happens to be blind. Or deaf. Or dyslexic. Because of this particular attribute related to his disability, John is no longer perceived as a person, he is now perceived as a problem to address (or dismiss). John no longer fits the mold and becomes, in most people’s minds, a perfect representation of an edge case.

In software design terms, edge cases are situations that threaten to break a system or the user experience of that system, as they introduce an unlikely set of parameters. As an example, if you were to design a service to upload photos online, you might think of your typical user as someone who might upload anywhere between five and twenty-five pictures at a time. But what happens when someone tries to upload five hundred pictures at once? Or a thousand? Or an entire library? Could the system support the request? Was the system even built to support that much stress? Or would it just fall flat on its face, and bring the server down with it?

For many people first being introduced to digital inclusion, web accessibility considerations and the needs and expectations of people with disabilities are one such perfect example of edge cases. Just how many blind people ever visited our site? What’s the likelihood of someone with ADHD ever going through our content? When was the last time someone with a mobility impairment used our application? Are any of these people even worth marketing to?

Those of us in the know understand that web accessibility principles benefit everyone — not just people with disabilities. But still, disability in Canada is much more prevalent than we think! Even when we only focus on people with disabilities (big emphasis on the word people, here), statistics show that over 22% of working-age Canadians have disabilities and collectively control over $55 billion annually, in after-tax, disposable income. Accessibility really is a matter of big bucks and smart business decisions.

And what about other demographic groups that are also often left out because we’re quick to dismiss them as edge cases? People over the age of 50, whose senses slowly start to deteriorate due to aging, non-native speakers who might struggle with the words that we use in our copy, folks who end up being marginalized by our use of technology, or by the way we deliver our content? What about the close relatives, loved ones, and colleagues of the people whom we leave out of the conversations, and who might also grow to resent the organizations that are not inclusive of the people they care about?

Start factoring in all of these potential edge cases, and you’ll quickly realize that well… they add up pretty fast. And before we know it, we are talking about a much bigger group than any of us actually realize… and really, what does that mean for organizations trying to appeal to the masses?

So yes, the words “edge cases” really do trigger me. It took me a while to understand why, and the answer to that question was revealed to me a few years ago when I read an amazing book titled “Design for Real Life”, by authors Sara Wachter-Boettcher and Eric A. Meyer. Early on, the authors make it a point to mention that ultimately, edge cases define the boundaries of who and what we care about. And while I’m ok with anyone dismissing a thing (the what), I guess that I’m much less comfortable with the idea of dismissing a person (the who).

…Ultimately, edge cases define the boundaries of who and what we care about. And while I’m ok with anyone dismissing a thing (the what), I guess that I’m much less comfortable with the idea of dismissing a person (the who).

There is much need in design to recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach to inclusion can never truly work. That designing for the extremes (notice the shift here) is the only way to truly be inclusive of everyone. So, if you play an active part in the web design or development industry, or if you have some degree of influence over that industry as a client, I urge you to stop referring to edge cases when it comes to accessibility and people with disabilities. And if you’re a person with a disability yourself, then I respectfully suggest that you no longer accept to be labeled that way by people in the industry who, frankly, should know better.

So, if you play an active part in the web design or development industry, or if you have some degree of influence over that industry as a client, I urge you to stop referring to edge cases when it comes to accessibility and people with disabilities. And if you’re a person with a disability yourself, then I respectfully suggest that you no longer accept to be labeled that way by people in the industry who, frankly, should know better.

Embracing the idea of stress cases instead of edge cases is the exact plea Wachter-Boettcher and Meyer were making in “Design for Real Life”. As we begin to think this way, then we let the stresses happening at the extremes of the spectrum of human experiences influence how each situation will be lived in the middle of that same spectrum, where the average users supposedly live. In other words, if we design for people who live on the far ends of the bell curve, then we can trust that the experiences we design will also naturally work better for those of us who live closer to the middle of that same bell curve.

Research has demonstrated time and time again thanks to the work of researchers such as Gilbert S. Daniels and Adolphe Quetelet that the very idea of the average user is flawed, and that in fact, the average user doesn’t even exist. It’s embarrassing that despite this documented knowledge, organizations are still operating from the limiting belief that appealing mainly to their perceived target users means they are marketing to the right people. If instead, brands opened up their communication channels to the people who live on the extremes of human experiences, then a lot more people would feel a lot more like they matter and that they belong…

If instead, brands opened up their communication channels to the people who live on the extremes of human experiences, then a lot more people would feel a lot more like they matter and that they belong…

Words do matter, and whether we realize it or not, the words we use and the context in which we use them to reveal a lot more about ourselves than we realize. Not everyone picks up on these signals but these words are signals, nonetheless. Only by making changes to the way we respond to the challenges introduced by the needs of people with disabilities can we hope to affect changes in the society we live in.

And that begins by stopping to dismiss people with disabilities as edge cases in design, and rather, recognize their experiences as inspiration to better understand how to craft an experience that can be inclusive of everyone.