Distinctions

This definition does conceal a few important distinctions and disputes, however. For example: one standard way to conceptualize disability is to see it as the gap between the demands of a task or environment and the capabilities of an individual to meet those requirements. The two obvious and complementary ways to close that gap are to enhance the person and reduce the demands of the task or environment. Enlarge the print or improve the eyeglass prescription. Cut the curb or design a wheelchair that will climb it. Adapt the mobile phone with bigger buttons or modify the person with a tremor-reducing arm support. Etc, etc.

Some people intend both technological approaches when they speak of AT, while others specifically exclude modifying the environment. For them, AT is wearable, carryable stuff that is associated with the person. Professionals who define themselves as modifiers of the living/working/recreating environments – often specialized architects – tend to see their work as distinct from, although compatible with, AT. We will adopt the broad definition of AT that incorporates all of the above.

Boundaries

More generally, the boundaries of AT– what’s included in the definition and what isn’t – will be defined differently by different communities of users and providers. Some particularly specialized devices such as prosthetic limbs may be seen as separate, largely because the craft and science of orthotics and prosthetics was “owned” by an established group of certified professionals before AT and rehabilitation engineering emerged as nomenclature and as professional fields. The same might be said about hearing aids and adapted driving controls and technologies to support academic achievement.