How Users Quietly Shape Assistive Technology

I first met Robert Woo in 2011, during his third walk in a powered exoskeleton. The architect had been paralyzed in a construction accident four years earlier, but he was determined to get back on his feet. Watching him walk through a rehabilitation room in a prototype exoskeleton, the technology seemed astonishing. I had the same reaction when reporting on the first brain-computer interfaces (BCI), which allowed paralyzed people to move robotic arms or communicate by thought alone. Both types of bionic technology seemed to border on magic.

But that initial sense of wonder, which I’ve gained over many years of reporting on these technologies, is only a starting point. What matters is not what these systems can do in a carefully staged demonstration, but how they perform in the real world. Do they work reliably? Can people with disabilities use them for their intended purpose? And how much does it actually cost (in time, effort and compromise) to get there? The question is not whether the technology looks impressive the first time, but whether it holds up the hundredth time.

This issue’s special report, “Cyborg Tech From the Inside,” takes this perspective seriously. In my feature article on Woo, an exoskeleton super-user who spent 15 years testing these systems, the history of the technology is inseparable from the history of its use. Woo’s incessant feedback resulted in steady, incremental improvements. In Edd Gent’s report on the pioneers who tested the first BCIs, the experience of these extraordinary technologies also resolves into something more complex. As one trial participant points out, these early adopters are like the first astronauts, who barely reached space before returning to Earth. Together, these stories reframe these individuals not as passive medical patients, but as the ultimate beta testers and co-engineers of the bionic age.

I saw the gap between demonstration and daily use when I recently interviewed Woo at a Manhattan showroom, where he was testing a new self-balancing exoskeleton from Wandercraft. The device is a striking advance that allowed him to stand without crutches, but it also revealed real-world friction. As Woo tried to get through the gate, just an inch of slope on the Park Avenue sidewalk was enough to trigger the machine’s safety sensors and stop his progress. It was a stark reminder of how far these systems must evolve before they become seamlessly integrated into daily life.

For the people who use them, this seamless integration is the ultimate goal. Achieving this will depend not only on technical advances, but also on the ability of these systems to withstand outside of controlled environments, over time and in real-world conditions. Looking from the inside doesn’t make these technologies any less remarkable, but it does change the way we judge them, not by what they can do once for a photo, but by what they can sustain over their lifetime. This is the standard that their users have applied since the beginning.

Our commitment to evaluating technology from a user perspective extends beyond this special report. To provide a necessary corrective to the “techno-solutionism” that often dominates the coverage of assistive devices and accessories, IEEE Spectrum established the Taenzer Fellowship for Disability Journalism, where six writers with disabilities write stories on the devices they rely on every day. As Stephen Cass, director of special projects, points out, these journalists “are not afraid to ask clear-eyed questions about technology and are keenly aware of its impact on humans.” You can read the fellows’ work at Spectrum.ieee.org/tag/taenzer-fellowship.