I was always curious about this. Given that sometimes you have to make multiple button presses to accomplish something and maybe one of your hands, wrists, or fingers are not available. Or when things use colors to mark something (DN) and you can’t distinguish colors.
I’m just curious how serious beatbox makers / synth companies take disability into account when designing their machines.
Dunno about hardware manufacturers but I do know that native instruments have accessibility options baked into their products for visually impaired users etc…
sadly they don’t make it a priority, as they represent a tiny fraction of the market (people with physical impairments).
i’m all for augmentation devices to improve access, but midi is quite limited for expression via a head switch or similar.
really interested in how this will progress over time, especially with recent developments in AGI translating thought patterns into data.
this simple answer is no,
the more complicated answer is that many might want to, but the added cost, difficulty etc just can’t be justified.
You’ll likely never see a piece of hardware with brail on it, and in software there are some accessibility functions - but these are usually part of the OS an not the applications themselves.
Even something as simple as using colours in your products that are easier to discern for people with different type of colour blindness are very rare.
As for any sort of physical disability - stay away from Eurorack 
There are things that companies can do that would be relatively easy/inexpensive but again the numbers don’t often justify it.
For the past year and a half i have investigated how to adapt synths for the blind.
Taking inspiration with Rachel Flowers playing complex analog synths, like here with her playing Keith Emerson’s Moog.
Part of my thought is to take less expensive but great sounding synths, and find ways to adapt them, particular for blind players, but have thought about other adaptations that would be possible.
By the way — braille is not out of the question, particularly electronic braille readers.
So there are ways to adapt some equipment. Some hardware just calls out for adaptation. Others would require considerable work. Just about all Elektron gear is a large challenge unfortunately.
If manufacturers would only consider giving access for adaptation that would be great.
I think generally inclusive design is improving - naturally there will always be hardware that’s unsuitable for some but hopefully the synth folks catch up a bit with other industries.
It’s something I care a lot about in my line of work.
Often this is as far as even quite large companies think, but an important aspect to prioritisation is ‘impact’, in addition to ‘reach’. A design choice you make can have an impact on a very small number of people, but it could be the difference between them being able to use it or not. Ideally these things should be prioritsed over things that have a very minor impact on many people.
But more generally in the software space we try to focus on inclusivity rather than accessibility, which is more about ensuring products simply work for everyone rather than having additional adornements (like braille) which will always be a niche requirement.
Interesting subject I’ll be keeping an eye on it! 
This is all inspiring but disheartening a little. I’m always like what if something happened to me. Could I continue to use these things?
I skateboard and have wrist injuries a lot. Making it hard from time to time to stretch a finger across a box to make something happen. I can’t imagine what it would be like if something more catastrophic happened.
Thanks
Adonis
I’ve posted about Johnatha Bastos before.
He’s a multi-instrumentalist, who plays drums, guitar and keyboards.
I’ve considered what a synth controller might be for Johnatha.
See his YT channel here.
This is false. The extra work CAN be justified. Any one of us could become disabled at any time. Most people experience some kind of impairment at some point in their life.
We have at least two models of disability. The “medical model” places disability within the person, occasionally attempting to “correct” a disability. The “social model” places the disabling force in the world around us as we fail to provide access to all when we create systems, tools and venues.
The canonical example is a ramp. Almost everyone finds a ramp easier than steps, not just wheelchair, stick and crutch users. Parents with kids, delivery agents with heavy goods… etc.
This is a good example of the inclusive design I describe above, I’ll remember this one as a good real world example. A solution that works well for everyone that happens to be accessible, rather than an additional expense that requires niche justification.
I use hardware because the tactile interfaces are in some ways more accessible than software. I have low vision which can’t be brought up to “average” by glasses. Tactile interfaces are easier for me: learnable, precise, fixed. There are software access tools on computers, but they often ruin context.
You must live in a warm, dry area. Ramps are awful in the wet and worse with snow/ice. Even in the dry, if you don’t get the angle right you can make access impossible with a ramp that is too steep, or has too-tight switchbacks.
Accessibility is important, but it takes work to design, integrate, and implement.
Those are solved problems though - ramps built to code are slip proof and angled appropriately. Any solution can not work if done incorrectly
The frustrating thing in working on developing projects and products is that engaging disability activists (or just seeking out impaired users) at an early state could drastically help workflow for everyone.
Accessibility optimizations for UI and product states would still translate to better design for persons with perfect vision!
Champion this within your team! There’s little reason not to do what you’re suggesting and you’ve articulated the benefit clearly. Cambridge University has good resources on some of this stuff
All good points.
No longer on a UI-centric or consumer product team, but suggestion appreciated. I’ll see if I can figure out how to diplomatically nudge owners of that area. Have in the past advocated, to no real response.
That’s a shame but you do need stakeholders and a culture that are at least receptive to these ideas.
And don’t get me wrong I’ve made a career out of pushing for this stuff and even with good teams this work can still be de-prioritised. For this reason it’s important that it becomes a part of the design culture more than a task in and of itself - an outlook and general consideration in the same way as gestalt and your business requirements. IMO good developers don’t need to be told to write accessible code and good designers don’t need to be told to design inclusively. But I have high standards
I went to an RYA conference a few years back for people that sail with disabilities. Met the people from this volunteer group - very cool idea. They’re retired engineers and take on briefs from people that need customisations etc.
They made Katherin a wheelchair adaptation that allowed her to hold her son, for example. Super cool stuff.
I used to write a lot of HTML (it’s all TypeScript now). I agree with what you’ve written for developers. The trend for branded everything can slow this down, but browsers and desktop OS’s provide so many hooks into their access subsystems that it should be the default way of working for most UI developers. I want to agree with your position on design, but I haven’t worked in that role.
