Hacker News Reader

Comment by hspain | Hacker News Reader

I stopped reading at this bit about the Free Wheelchair Mission:

"Over 700,000 have been distributed in 90 countries - they could have easily and affordably produced a more appropriate and desirable wheelchair."

Not only did you inaccurately describe the product they deliver (which is constantly increasing in quality), your critique minimizes this example of what is actually fantastic design that has helped nearly a million people.

Would you rather those million people live without mobility while waiting for your mythical designer to build the perfect wheelchair?

View on HN

The Free Wheelchair Mission is a very nuanced example. The organization is great and the version 2 of their wheelchair I think has embraced the mindset I am discussing. They have learned from their mistakes.

Generation 2 of their design: http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.64...

I wish they they had maybe distributed 1000 of version 1 before they went to version 2, not 700,000 of a cut-up plastic chair attached to wheels with bolts. I think in the long run they will do great.

That's an interesting way of describing a non profit that you have listed under the heading "Examples of Useless Design."

The point is, they got something out there and while it may have just been a "cut-up plastic chair attached with wheels and bolts", it gave mobility to hundreds of thousands of people who would have otherwise not had it. I can't see how anyone would categorize that as useless.

It was only through creating that original wheelchair, then watching them being used in the field and getting feedback that they were able to get the knowledge and funding to continue to serve that community.

I think that the Free Wheelchair Mission has had a fantastic feedback loop with its wheelchair recipients which has allowed them to design and distribute their Gen 2 chairs.

I really don't understand your point here. They got something into the market that was very much needed. Their version 1 was a very simple MVP, it is very well designed, and it simply works.

We work with kids that have received the first version of their chairs and giving kids mobility is a huge thing. Not to mention that if/when that plastic chair breaks, we can fix it in house.

The fact that 700,000 people now have mobility is fantastic.

^fyi, author here

Can you describe what was inaccurate about the description? I'm not familiar tbh, so just want some more information!

That being said, I don't think Ehsan (author) is arguing for a stagnant system that waits for a perfect wheelchair. He is simply advocating for better feedback processes within nonprofits and humanitarian-focused product development.

The wheelchair is a good thing, even with it's arguably effective design. What could it be, though, if designed with more care and feedback?

I have to agree that I found that particular example ambiguous - how could it be made more affordable?

The other 3 examples seemed pretty convincing, though.

As someone who has volunteered with the ln-4 hand I found The authors criticism of it pretty lacking as well. He seems to imply it is flimsy and useless while if you looked at this short video of people using it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpfeWpy0l2A you could really see otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com