It’s a Design Flaw, Not a “Blind Spot”

The expression “blind spot” is often used to describe how bias blocks or influences our perspective. I think this misses the point. It also frames our bias as somehow being separate from us.

An obstruction or limitation indicates that you *can’t* see something clearly or fully. Bias means that you *don’t* see it.

There is a capacity for awareness, but not the exposure (through a lifetime of personal lived experience, early messages, and multigenerational influences) to notice it.

Design flaws are those pesky things that might technically work, but don’t support what the person needs to accomplish. These flaws range anywhere from annoying to fatal. Or cringeworthy reviews and higher abandonment rates.

Patterns of biased language, unfortunate word choice, stereotypes, or lack of representation are preventable defects – design flaws. They create barriers and shut people out of your company’s message, experiences, and check-out lines.

Thinking about problematic word choice or images as flaws makes it part of the quality control process. It’s a quality issue with potential harm to users and likely to have a negative impact on reviews, market expansion, and brand reputation.

It also diffuses some of the emotionally charged responses and resistance to investing in quality control. Design flaws are objective and have a business justification behind correcting them.

Remember, not everyone is at the same point of the journey. Do I wish we could just point out systemic racism in materials and have it fixed? Yes. But if it were that easy, we wouldn’t still be having this conversation.

This approach also creates new opportunities for review points, cross-checks, and a system that can adapt to future needs. As our understanding evolves, so do the mechanisms that support our products.

 So, who in your organization is responsible for catching these design flaws?