"It only needs to work for one of us": Rethinking DIY Deaf Tech Through Situated Co-Design
Shuxu Huffman, Robin Angelini, Raja Kushalnagar, Katta Spiel · 2025 · Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '25) · doi:10.1145/3663547.3749828
Summary
This experience report documents how a Deaf open water swimmer (Huffman, the first author) and their hearing kayak partner collaboratively designed and built DeafSwim, a vibration-based communication system for use during long-distance open water swims. The kayaker accompanies the swimmer by kayak, but standard Deaf attention strategies like flashing lights, floor vibrations, or physical tapping are impractical in open water. After finding that no existing mainstream or assistive technology addressed this specific need, the pair built a lightweight system using an iPhone 12 Pro and a Pixel Watch 3 communicating via Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). The smartphone app lets the kayaker send three distinct vibration patterns to the swimmer's smartwatch — left (course correction left), right (course correction right), and look (request immediate visual attention) — after which the swimmer can respond by adjusting direction or making visual contact for ASL communication. The system was refined through six swim sessions across varied environments including indoor pools, freshwater lakes, and coastal saltwater, with vibration intensity adjusted for different water temperatures. The paper frames this work through Deaf Tech philosophy, crip knowing-making, and situated design, arguing that the tool emerged from relational trust, Deaf cultural practices, and embodied knowledge rather than from adapting hearing-centered technology.
Key findings
The tool succeeded not just as a technical safety device but as something that fundamentally transformed the swimming experience. Huffman reflected that open water swimming had always carried an invisible cognitive workload — constantly monitoring for the kayaker, dividing attention between swimming and visual scanning every four to six strokes. With DeafSwim, this burden shifted to the hearing partner, who now decides when to signal, freeing the swimmer to focus on the water and even notice things they would have missed before (like seeing a purple crab under a rock for the first time). The design intentionally reversed the typical burden of communication that Deaf people carry, making the hearing ally responsible for monitoring and initiating contact. Disagreements during design were resolved by deferring to Deaf cultural values — for example, using "look" rather than "stop" for the attention signal, reflecting Deaf communication norms of gaining visual attention rather than halting movement. The paper also highlights that Apple Watch's closed ecosystem proved unreliable for this use case, while Android's open architecture allowed the necessary Bluetooth modifications.
Relevance
This paper makes a compelling case for "situated empowerment" — supporting Deaf and disabled communities in creating their own technologies rather than only designing for them. It challenges the accessibility research community's tendency to prioritize scalable, generalizable solutions, arguing that small-scale, culturally grounded tools built by and for specific individuals can be deeply meaningful. The concept of reversing the burden of communication — making the hearing person responsible for initiating contact rather than requiring the Deaf person to constantly monitor — offers a powerful design principle applicable well beyond swimming. For accessibility practitioners, the work raises critical questions about who gets to create assistive technology and whether maker spaces, development platforms, and research funding adequately support community-led innovation. The authors issue a direct call to action: what would a Deaf-centered maker movement look like, and what tools and platforms are needed so Deaf people can shape their own technological solutions?
Tags: deaf and hard of hearing · assistive technology · DIY assistive technology · co-design · participatory design · deaf culture · vibrotactile feedback · wearable technology