Prototyping bodies: a post-phenomenology of wearable simulations

To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design

“…In light of the understanding of empathy discussed above, we would argue that the difference in outcome between both examples has nothing to do with differences in the presumed accuracy of the wearable simulations. In fact, developers of such devices themselves acknowledge that the attempt to create accurate simulators is futile, as they would still be unable to capture the complexity of lived experience (Kullman, 2016). Rather, we would argue, in line with Kim Kullman (2016), that the latter example brings about the limits or the 'incompleteness' of empathy ( (Foster, 2010, p. 218) in (Kullman, 2016, p. 85)).…”

“…In fact, developers of such devices themselves acknowledge that the attempt to create accurate simulators is futile, as they would still be unable to capture the complexity of lived experience (Kullman, 2016). Rather, we would argue, in line with Kim Kullman (2016), that the latter example brings about the limits or the 'incompleteness' of empathy ( (Foster, 2010, p. 218) in (Kullman, 2016, p. 85)). Any 'knowledge about the body in design needs to be coupled with an acceptance of "nonknowledge" (Gross, 2010, pp.…”

“…-ideation techniques to evoke a designer's own experiences in a domain relevant to the user; a case in point here is the use of wearable simulations such as gloves, goggles, or whole-body suits (Boffi, Fontana, Rosati, & Milani, 2014;Carmel-Gilfilen & Portillo, 2016). These objects restrict the movements of the wearer to evoke, through a combination of affects and sensations, the experiences of a person having difficulties performing certain physical tasks (Kullman, 2016).…”

A Storytelling-based Approach to Designing for the Needs of Ageing People

“…[6]. Similarly, while the use of wearable simulators, such as glows or suits that mimic a body impairment, can be used to trigger a certain degree of empathy in the wearer, it is important to remember that such simulators need to be considered mediators of particular experiences (e.g., opening the lid of a jar with reduced hand mobility) rather than tools that can fully enable having another human's experiences [10]. As Decety and Ickes further note, the risk is to "over project-to view ourselves as more representative of other people in specific respects than we really are."…”

Technologies of friendship: Accessibility politics in the ‘how to’ mode

“…Far from being something fully knowable and achievable that is accomplished through ready-made technological solutions (such as in the dominant accessibility paradigm), accessibility for ETS entails a space to deal with many ‘unknowns’: what bodily diversity might mean in practice, how it can be appreciated, produced and worked out through manifold materialisations creating entry-points between bodily diverse people. Technologies of friendship are, in fact, articulations of situations of ‘mutual access’ to elicit, appreciate and situate bodily diversity in common, where what is meant by body and environment is materially and practically held in suspension and scrutinised (Sánchez Criado & Cereceda, 2016; Kullman, 2016). These materialisations signal a peculiar relational politics: a practice situated in the surroundings of wheelchairs and their users to materially rethink environments with the aspiration of generating the very possibility of a relation, making emerge, in turn, a particular conception of accessibility.…”