Disability Dongles
When tools are created that nobody asked for -- and divert attention from the problems that need fixes.
What It Is
"Disability dongle" is a term coined by disability rights advocate Liz Jackson to describe a class of inventions that:
- Are designed for disabled people but without disabled people
- Marketed as innovative, yet fails to address real access needs
- Built to be flashy rather than functional
- Often ignore existing solutions that disabled people already use
- Reinforce exclusion by treating disability as a problem to be fixed rather than a social mismatch to be addressed.
Disability dongles are often splashy, overengineered, and heavily marketed -- but practically useless, patronizing, or even harmful in real life. These devices or features are often designed in a vacuum. They treat disability as a technical flaw to fix -- instead of recognizing inaccessibility as a systemic issue.
Why It Happens
- No disabled stakeholders: Solutions are imagined in rooms disabled people weren’t invited into.
- Lack of lived experience: Teams without disabled creators guess at needs and overvalue novelty.
- Techno-solutionism: Assumes disability is the problem, not the inaccessibility of environments, and that it can be solved with gadgets or AI.
- Media incentives: Journalists reward feel-good disability stories that center nondisabled “saviors.”
- Savior narratives: Products are designed for PR wins and awards, not sustainable usability or equity.
Where It Happens (ENABLE Stages)
| ENABLE Stage | How Disability Dongles Show Up |
|---|---|
| Set Requirements that Include Accessibility | No input from disabled people; assumptions guide priorities. |
| Create Accessible Content | The product’s interface copy or instructional materials don’t reflect real user workflows. |
| Design Accessible Experiences | Prioritizes novelty over accessibility standards or integration. |
| Develop Accessible Implementations | Ignores real user constraints; fails to follow inclusive patterns. |
| Test for Accessibility | Conducted without disabled users or skipped entirely. |
| Triage and Prioritize Accessibility Issues | Reports from disabled users deprioritized or dismissed as edge cases. |
| Iterate to Address Shortcomings | Community feedback ignored; improvements focus on optics. |
| Create Stopgaps | Dongles are introduced to appear helpful while delaying real fixes. |
How It Disables
Disability dongles displace actual solutions. They:
- Divert attention away from shared systems that need fixing.
- Reinforce segregation by creating separate -- often broken -- tools.
- waste limited resources, duplicating solutions that already exist.
- undermine trust, leading communities to distrust future interventions.
- Obscure failure by masking inaccessibility with empty gestures.
- Deflect responsibility, suggesting the problem is disability -- not design.
Instead of eliminating barriers, dongles create new ones -- wasting resources while maintaining the status quo. They can even increase dependence by offering just enough access to discourage systems from doing better.
Real-World Examples
- A single-line-of-code overlay that claims to make websites fully accessible -- without fixing underlying markup.
- A complex app to help wheelchair users navigate inaccessible sidewalks -- instead of fixing the sidewalks.
- A voice-controlled robotic arm to open doors in public spaces -- instead of installing automatic doors.
- A smart glove that converts sign language to speech -- without making environments more Deaf-friendly.
- A robotic exoskeleton to “help” people walk -- instead of addressing wheelchair inaccessibility.
- An AI “eyebrow reader” to detect emotions of blind users, instead of making content accessible.
- A “smart cane” that vibrates near obstacles -- while cities fail to maintain sidewalks.
- Overlays or widgets that claim to "make your site accessible with one line of code."
What Care Sounds Like
“We co-designed this with the disabled community.”
“We improved the system so everyone benefits.”
“We hired disabled designers from the start.”
“We prioritized fixing the underlying barrier.”
“We built for integration, not isolation.”
What Neglect Sounds Like
“We’ll release a version for everyone else later.”
“It’s a prototype -- we just wanted to help.”
“It’s a great idea -- even if no one uses it.”
“It got a grant, so it must be working.”
“It’s not perfect, but it won an award.”
“We thought this would be inspiring.”
“Real accessibility is too expensive.”
📝 Disclaimer
The ENABLE Model draws on principles from anthropology and journalism to document how people intervene or compensate for accessibility breakdowns in the real world. Inclusion here does not imply endorsement. We focus on observed use -- how a tool, organization, or strategy is actually used -- rather than how it is marketed. Citations, when provided, are for verification and transparency.
And if you don't know, now you know. -- The Notorious B.I.G.
Edited by Lawrence Weru, alum of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School.