One thing I noticed about the video introduction is the speaker is explicitly talking to the viewer as if he or she is not the target audience, e.g. "while you and I may take this for granted ..." and "the disabled are exactly the same as you and me ..."
The video is presumably made to be shared amongst a wider audience than the target market.
And I guess that for a disabled person it would be a huge psychological win to have able-bodied people looking with envy rather than sympathy at their means of locomotion.
I wonder if it's just for disabled people. It's essentially a sitting Segway. There are certain jobs for which the added height of a Segway is key; crowd control being one. However, one of the biggest issues with Segway are accidents. This would all but eliminate them based on the user being seated.
If you lived in a warm climate and work was 10km or less away with bike lanes........this would appear to be an interesting choice? Or worked on a large warehouse floor where you constantly moved between areas etc.
The disabled person ultimately gets to decide how to spend their own insurance money on assistive devices, but doesn't always have the full perspective on the impact on their friends, or family, or possibilities of workplace or housing, that can change with one device or another. Plus, they're frequently old or have a cognitive/learning disability or some other thing that makes them staid in their ways, and makes their caretakers wary of change.
I think this video is aimed at reaching out to the people around the disabled person who might currently be adapting their lifestyle to suit the requirements of the disabled's present assistive device, and could be convinced to advocate to the disabled person based on the increased autonomy/decreased dependence it would lend them.
That is probably to make clear that this is not a Wall-E device or a bicycle replacement. Even with that clear language, multiple people here did not get that.
To be fair, that's exactly what it looks like until you watch the video. And some people may not be able to stream video at their work. The page talks about "personal transportation" and doesn't mention the disabled once.
I thought the same thing. I wanted to send a link to my father, who suffers from post-polio syndrome and could benefit from an innovation like this, but I'm concerned the tone would offend him.
Also, when he says "a disabled" is quite cringeworthy. You're supposed to say "person with disabilities" because it's not a "label", just a description of a normal person who happens to have different transportation needs.
Come on. This guy spent thousands of hours designing a tool to make life better for people who can't walk, and all you care about is his choice of words?
> (have you ever tried the joystick control on an electric wheelchair?)
I have, and they suck. But the main reason they suck is because they've been neutered so they're useable for a wider range of people.
Many people who use electric wheelchairs also have problems with fine motor control, seizures, etc. so the joystick has a lot of filtering with associated slow response and staggered acceleration.
I know people in wheelchairs who otherwise had no problems with fine motor skills that had electronically-minded friends help them to upgrade the chairs and replace the control unit. Those wheelchairs go fast after some modding.
Wheelchairs usually occupy the same space as pedestrians - this was a big failing with the Segway, they're not allowed on pavements (aka sidewalks) - in the UK at least - as they're powerful and relatively heavy vehicles. Presumably at least a part of the design is to protect the wheelchair users surroundings and people nearby.
In Copenhagen it's become semi-standard that motorized wheelchairs / mobility scooters go in the bike lane instead of on sidewalks, which means it's reasonable for them to go at a higher speed [1]. This obviously wouldn't work until you have a citywide infrastructure of fairly wide bike lanes, though.
I agree and I think the cool factor comes from the fact that users of Ogo need it in order to move without their hands being tied up and also that it actually takes a bit of muscle effort to operate. Compare to Segways, which are associated with laziness (at least in my mind).
Segways are cool. Don't have one but I got a chance to test it once.
I can see how they could be useful for things like malls and factory floors, in a similar way a kick scooter is. But you know what? Kick scooter is even cooler! The speeds you can achieve on a good concrete surface are exhilarating!
From the outside, powered monowheel seem cooler and less obnoxious than segways. The speed of some of them seems utterly ridiculous though (some brands/models are quoted at 20mph)
People sometimes behave like douchebags. This is probably the same phenomenon that leads some to call users of another piece of technology "glassholes".
Yes - I think you've identified the reason, they're actively involved. And it's not just cool, using the core muscles is pretty important, as he mentioned.
Perhaps the best thing is that able-bodied people will feel jealous when they see it.
"Someone riding a motorcycle isn't working any harder [than someone riding a Segway]."
TIL that Paul Graham has never ridden a motorcycle.
When riding a motorcycle, your left hand is used for clutch control, your right hand is used for both front brake and throttle control, your left foot is used to shift and your right foot controls the rear brake. Your arms control the front wheel's angle, which creates lean, and balance must be maintained by your whole body at all times:
Riding motorcycle is not as hard as you make it out to be. Unless you're riding liter class or riding it in track, you don't need fitness regimen (see obese Harley riders for instance). Sure all your hands and legs have assigned jobs and the body as a whole maintains balance, but it is certainly way less demanding than say riding a bicycle.
When you control clutch, all you're doing is closing your fist. This is true for all the other things you listed.
I'm not saying riding a motorcycle isn't hard, but it is not that much harder than riding a bicycle for a normal person.
Although I would agree that motorcycling is harder than Segway(ing), I would not say motrocycling is _that_ physically intense[0]. I would argue a bicycle requires more fitness ability then a motorcycle.
Ofcourse, even driving a car in a competitive manner requires good fitness.
[0] Rode a sports bike for many years and attended multiple days of track school and visits to the track.
It does avoid bearing the medical equipment tag, the old tech metal cruft, disabled .. none of that comes to mind when I saw the video. It might help everybody forget about the condition and start acting normal again.
To me, this is part of the appeal. Abled folks get to do all sorts of slightly unsafe things: skateboarding, motorcycling, etc. Why should disabled folks be tied to ultra-regulated, super-safe electric wheelchairs with absurdly slow governors?
The edgy vibe is what makes this cool (for me). I'm allowed to choose to ride a motorcycle (which could leave me stranded / kill me / etc). Disabled folks should also be allowed to choose their own calculated risks.
Uh, because you don't have legs in case of a bad thing, and even though disabled people may have strong arms after using wheelchairs, and a strong spirit, it's still far more risky for them. What if the person break a wrist or an arm and can't move with the remaining one ?
That's why it's called risk. An able-bodied person can injure themselves by taking risks just the same. Why should disabled persons be subject to limitations decided by someone else that are designed for the lowest common denominator? That's the only question being brought up here.
Very good point. It would be sad if the medical world stays too dogmatic, because a device that makes you wanna live is as important as a safe vehicle. At least I believe that's it's a win for everybody, that person may be far proactive mentally, physically[1] and socially; lessening the load on their close ones, and maybe other related bills like pain pills or other treatments.
[1] I buy the argument of being constantly trying to balance. These sets of muscle are rarely trained yet very very impact-ful on both body and mood.
My anecdotal opinion is that insurance is unlikely to cover anything above the basic wheelchair anyways. I wonder if those looking for light weight, highly active wheelchairs, like those used for sports (basketball, tennis etc) are paid for out of pocket anyways.
I don't think they can generate even half the torque of this, and the balance point is different. Maybe something half way between a belt and nothing at all. Just enough to slow you down if case you're about to fly off.
Maybe not. This one seems to have some kind of control loop for steering, probably based on contact forces. The control loop surely is designed to catch you and keep you upright before the contact force gets too low, no matter how hard you try to break. (As opposed to a joystick-based break.) But sure, it won't prevent you from driving into an obstacle.
It's very easy to get tied up in valuations, unicorns, growth metrics and living the life as a startups with a great idea but no way to monetize it until you get 500millioner users.
But at the end of the day they most optimal recipe for success still is
1) Find a real problem
2) Build a solution
3) Start selling
There are alternatives to growth-hacking and content marketing and what other tricks are out there.
Just look around you there are real problem everywhere where the solution doesn't need a marketing budget. It just needs to make itself known. And it's revenue from day one.
While I agree with the spirit of your post, let us step back and think clearly about where your criticism lies.
Think about what it means to "hack" on something.
Today we often use the term to describe a programmer working feverishly on his software project "hacking away".
But based on your use of the term ("growth-hacking") we can see that it can often be used in the sense of hacking a problem into something more manageable. Jury-rigging, taking a smart shortcut, duct taping things together. Working smart, not hard [1]. Is that not what most of the people here are aiming to do?
So let's not get offended that someone else's hack is different from your own.
You admit that selling is important, and yet a good solution "doesn't need marketing", because I suppose the product sells itself? This board is filled with hard-earned lessons from fellow hackers who had a great product but no market(ing), and ultimately failed.
This "ogo" product is certainly not getting revenue from day one.
Man, you completely missed the point of what OP was saying in your rush to talk semantics.
He was saying that this product showcases a lot of thoughtful development to solve a problem that a non-trivial number of people have that can't really be solved through marketing shortcuts. And I think we both know exactly the sort of marketing shortcuts he/she is talking about - the apptification of everything, the hype endemic in software product launches, the VC blogosphere. That sort of hack doesn't apply here at all. Taking a Segway as an inspiration or starting point for this product? Maybe that's the hacking you're trying to associate with by posting this. But that's not what he was talking about.
OP is saying what a breath of fresh air it is to see someone sink such time and effort into making a well designed solution to an actual problem, and that kind of effort creates marketability commensurate to the development.
I didn't miss the point. Of course I agree that it's wonderful to see a product that solves an actual problem. My point was that even in the case of a clearly useful and "marketable" product, it is not at all clear that it will ultimately be successful and change people's lives. The Segway itself is a great example of this: The product works, it does what it claims it will, but nobody owns one. Society is no better off because of it, unfortunately.
I used the rubric of "hacking" to demonstrate that there is a middle road--between inflated valuations/expectations and pure engineering prowess--that will ultimately create life-changing solutions to problems.
Think about Apple's successful products: They did nothing new compared to what was already on the market. But by creatively removing features they made their products more marketable and ended up changing the world.
I'm not so sure you didn't. You keep bringing the conversation back to "hacking", and I'm really unclear as to why. Are you trying to equate hacking to product design? Because neither Apple nor Segway were hacking anything - they both saw a consumer experience they wanted to deliver, and then designed a product that was supposed to deliver it. Both companies took a focused, highly planned approach to delivering their respective experiences. That's just about as antithetical to the "try this and see what happens" hacker mentality as it's possible to get. The only real difference between your examples was the size of their respective markets. (I say that because the few people that buy Segways tend to be outspoken about loving them. Or maybe that's just Woz.)
Now, if the question you were trying to bring up in the first place was "Do we have any indication that the product designed here actually has some appeal to its target market?", I would find your statement a little more credible.
My "criticism" isn't really a criticism of the growth hackers, it's not even a criticism of anything. Sorry if it came off as that.
Just observing that a lot of talk both here on HN and in the media is about finding ways to get your product into an overcrowded market, in front of an audience trying to explain why our product is better than the competitors and often without any way to monetize that. It has it's own merits of course.
I was simply positivity surprised that there are still some people who find what I consider real problems and try to solve them. Without all the bells and whistles because the problem they solve is fundamental enough.
Looks cool, but I don't know anything about this market so I can't really comment directly on utility or prospects. But, to take a tangent:
I think there's a shift that hardware oriented entrepreneurs might mine for some ideas.
Around web 2.0 time there was a shift where people got more comfortable with the internet. They used real names, and pictures without expecting this would inevitably lead to serial killers at the door. Facebook worked because people agreed to tell the internet their name. Online dating went mainstream. Twitter, Linkedin, all sorts of sharing become common. The interesting part is that the technological trends like were only part of the picture. Cultural shifts were just as important.
Tech is cool now, that's the new trend. Where a calculator watch in the 90s would get an 8 year old beat up, todays equivalents are status symbols. Interestingly, glasses became cool in recent years.
So, ideas might be found by looking over old technology that is uncool and seeing if it can be re-imagined as 2015 tech. A regular electric wheelchair is uncool. This segway thing is cool.
One real obvious device to think about Apple-ising is hearing aides. Hearing aids are so uncool 80 year olds don't want to be seen with one. They are all about being small, flesh colored and "invisible." I think there's a decent chance a bright green large ear piece might be cool.
And speaking of hearing aids… Can hearing aids improve the hearing of non impaired people. Can you get better than normal hearing from a hearing aid?
As a hearing aid wearer, I can probably think of a couple of ways hearing aids could be used to improve hearing of non-impaired[1] but you definitely don't want just "broad spectrum amplification" (hearing every small click, clack & whir gets old fast). Think more along the lines of decrease of external noise in a cafe so you can focus on a conversation, a tunable amplification of quiet sounds, as replacements for blue tooth headphones etc (sound quality is not great currently) stuff along that lines.
> Hearing aids are so uncool 80 year olds don't want to be seen with one. They are all about being small, flesh colored and "invisible."
This might be true for older populations but kids can get brightly coloured hearing aids and moulds[2]! When I was first being fitted for HA's (at age 32) my audiologist assumed I would want the least visible model possible but I opted for larger more visible behind the ear models...I want people who I interact with to be able to see that I have hearing loss. People tend to get annoyed if you ask them over and over to repeat themselves but are generally much more patient if they know you are hard of hearing.
[1] Just FYI The term hearing-impaired is somewhat offensive to some people (not me) who prefer hard-of-hearing or deaf, or Deaf
I appreciate your healthy outlook toward your hearing loss. With my family background, it seems inevitable that my hearing will continue to get worse than it already is. I want to take your attitude as an inspiration rather than the less healthy attitudes that I often see.
It's interesting that glasses, sitting in the middle of your face are seen as less of an issue than hearing aids. It's really just a random whim of fashion.
I think this may change soon. It will almost certainly change if a device targeting non-impaired gets any traction.
I'm not so sure that it's a simple matter of fashion.
Wearing glasses is, for lack of a better term, 'normal'. I don't know the statistics but probably a quarter of the population has impaired sight (I'm one of them). Additionally in the majority of cases it presents no handicap at all once corrected - often it results in acuity above the average.
If it's not (legally) a wheelchair, it doesn't need FDA approval, and from what I understand FDA approval is an extremely expensive process (as in, "increase unit price by hundreds of thousands of dollars" expensive).
So in the end this is a good move? People who need wheelchairs can get them for cheaper, like how gluten-intolerant people get a lot more choices now that gluten-free options are getting so popular
Probably not a good example. I've heard that gluten-intolerant people can no longer trust a label "gluten free" these days. It is now used as a marketing device for healthy people and not meaning that it is safe for those with the medical condition.
It's a sit on Segway, seems it would fit the same niche too? From what I've seen of Segway's that niche is kinda "novelty solo recreational vehicle".
One thing here is speed.
UK Highway Code says "Powered wheelchairs and scooters MUST NOT travel faster than 4 mph (6 km/h) on pavements or in pedestrian areas." [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-users... - "must not" IIRC means it's illegal with reference to UK legislation].
Slightly different, under Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made, S 10(1)(a) a class 3 vehicle - those with a speed limit above 4mph (which are allowed to go 8mph on roads) - must have "a device which is capable of limiting the maximum speed of the invalid carriage to 4 miles per hour". They are also required to have an indicator, which they must by the same law be able to see when using the vehicle, which shows if the limiter is in operation.
It seems a bit harder to sell than speeding a few mph above the limit in a car; but in either case those that want to flout the law are able to, you are right.
This is one of the better usecases for video. I can't parse a video quickly, and an interview is a rather lengthy way to receive information if the only value is spoken text. Not the case here. The number one piece of information people want when hitting the site is how it works. They went with bootstrap and the embedded video isn't responsive but no one really gives a shit because as long as it can be clicked you can get a product demo.
A video is a good idea for this product, but there should be sufficient text to tell you what it is and what it does without needing to play the video anyway, eg if you're in public without earphones or have severely limited bandwidth,
And for that subset, it might be better (healthwise) than a regular electric wheelchair, since it keeps more muscles working. Smaller market than "everyone in a wheelchair", but I think (?) it addresses that market well.
One downside I can see for this: it looks like, if the user had a seizure, it would be extremely dangerous. It would keep them in the seat but interpret their movements as erratic hard accelerations and sharp turns.
> One downside I can see for this: it looks like, if the user had a seizure, it would be extremely dangerous
You're right. However, I suspect there are a lot of people who want this precisely because it's an electric wheelchair that's not been designed for the lowest common denominator.
Most of the electric wheelchairs seem to want their target market to be "all disabled people". This means you have to limit the speed, agility, control sensitivity, etc. so even people with (say) Cerebral Palsy can control them without putting them in danger.
There is a market for disabled people with full arm control and no proclivity for seizures who just want a fast, efficient way to get around. Right now I think the most popular way is to buy an electric wheelchair and mod it, but there's probably a market there for an off-the-shelf solution.
Ok... so are cars (in fact, they are much worse), but we survive somehow. I mean, I guess this is true, but being paralyzed usually does not mean you are unusually predisposed to seizures. This criticism kind of feels like hunting for problems.
people who regularly get seizures are not allowed to drive. The laws vary a lot by country and state and can be looked up here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy_and_driving
Most of the time the law is of the form "you must be seizure-free for <x> months in order to drive"
Right, and I suppose one probably wouldn't buy this if they were prone to seizures, either. I presume there's enough of a disjunction between people with impaired mobility and seizure risk for that to not be such a big deal.
I noticed two support wheels in the rear. I suspect it might be there to keep the occupant from hurting himself if he fall backward due to a situation like the one you described.
The balance mechanism will keep them from falling backward - but interpret a heavy backward arch as "reverse fast" and a forward jerk as "damn the torpedoes, all ahead full" and a sideways flop as "spin wildly". So it's less a problem of them falling out or falling over, as one of them dashing around like a panicking bull, ramming things and people at 20mph.
Of course, there's nothing to stop the manufacturers programming in different modes, imagine speed limits, sports modes with higher torque and lower battery life, etc, etc. If some such "The operator is prone to seizures" mode were to exist, to require more prolonged sustained input from a user, or to move very slowly, after "double inputting" an intent, I can see this being quite safe, a "lean forwards twice to toggle moving forwards at 3mph" may well be a totally acceptable interface for some subset of people.
The market for devices like these is a joke. You fall into two categories, expensive and not that well designed, and inexpensive and very cheaply made overseas.
The problem you need to solve is getting the insurance companies and Medicare to pay for your device. You need lobbying and certifications and all that bureaucracy. No matter how mediocre your product is, you can then sell it like hotcakes.
Australian here, suspect he's spent significant time in both countries because the way he says 'this' is not how an Australian accent sounds, but other parts of his speech sound very Australian.
I thought it was kiwi too. I've spent more time in NZ than OZ though and am less familiar with the Australian accent. If this website[1] is correct, then the company is registered in NZ at least.
I wonder if they have any plans on dealing with stairs. Honestly I think the arm freedom is a big deal so I think they could come up with some novel ideas for stairs or other terrain. Bipedal movement (or I guess any number of legs) is impressive in that it can handle a variety of terrain.
A trite and cheesy observation... it seems we are trying to make machines learn to walk and humans learn to roll :)
In retrospect, it's a bit surprising they never enhanced it to operate hands free like this - it was made by the same folks as the segway and feels like a natural evolution.
I remember talking about the iBot with a wheelchair bound friend when it came out.
His response was "the people who designed this have obviously never been bound to a wheelchair". I think I was in 9th or 10th grade at the time, so I don't remember his reasoning, but I remember the disdain for the invention.
Looks great! What if they added spatial navigation by video camera and voice control to cover people who have trouble controlling the chair with their body position.
At least for simple navigation I think the tech is mature enough to make it today. Just make sure to avoid obstacles and people and find your way from A to B.
Couple that with the Google car fitted with an automatic docking station and you have an almost complete system of transport.
The same way one can walk, or run, the person using the device can adjust his or her speed to their conditioning. I don't really understand the dismissal of the idea because one could go fast with it.
People running hurt themselves when they hit people, a wheelchair (itself) won't normally be 'injured' by hitting a person. Moreover there's a natural limit to the momentum in an impact as heavy people usually can't run as fast as lighter people. Motorised wheelchairs usually have relatively heavy batteries and some relatively hard, sharp, edges.
Joystick controlled chairs I've seen have had the joysticks as dead-man's handles too.
I suspect that would lead to some reluctance to embrace the idea completely.
From the perspective of disabilities the demonstrator is certainly using their legs a lot, it seems the usefulness would be for lower limb amputees primarily?
For those people looking at the guy moving around by shifting in his seat and thinking "I want one!", it looks like this Segway modification is the closest thing you can actually order:
http://suigenerisseat.com
The Q&A video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwLzeEpP5I shows a switch which disables side-to-side movement (and a joystick which can be used to turn when lean-to-turn is disabled).
Me too, in the video they show an operator scooping a basket ball off the floor without effecting his direction of travel, but I wonder how hard that is to do in an instinctive way.
It suddenly dawned on me that I'll most likely live to experience certain categories of disability that'll grant you access to technology which will make you altogether more able-bodied than the average "non-disabled" person.
The title is a bit weird. I don't understand why they call it "personal transportation".
I mean it is personal transportation, for people in wheel chairs, but not a new take on personal transportation in the way Segway tried to be.
The title wasn't clear ('personal transportation' made it seem - as others have mentioned - in the class of personal transportation that might be occupied by Segways etc), and I had limited (read: no) time so I did not get to watch the video.
I mean, it looked like a wheelchair to me, but hey it's the 21st century, sometimes it feels like all bets are off. :/
Having problems walking is having problems walking. Judging the disabled because you think they deserve it doesn't make them healthy again. I'm not sure what it accomplishes, to be honest.
I think the idea is that you can have problems with walking that could be fixed by walking (I am currently in a situation like that after a knee surgery). I cases like that, this would not be a (objectively) helpful device.
But I do not consider myself qualified on this topic, as I have no idea how far the obesity problem has gone in the US.
If you have -limited- mobility then a device that can get you through everyday life instead of limiting your everyday life to your current mobility level is beneficial. Your hypothetical future mobility is not the point. If you can only walk 1 mile then this lets you get to something 2 miles away until you get to the point where you can walk those two miles. Working with an occupational therapist is obviously a complete therapy.
If you have problems with X that could be easily solved by Y, you don't buy device Z instead that makes problem X worse. People aren't that dumb. If they buy Z, they have some other reasons.
EDIT nevermind, I'm being stupid here. Too much coffee probably. Commenters below are right.
If Y is a strenuous activity (walking when very overweight), if the problems caused by X (obesity) are mostly long-term, and if Z is a device that offers immediate relief for X's short-term problems, then yes people very often buy Z.
People choose immediate gratification over long-term solutions all the time.
I myself just avoided walking for a few months, and I've seen quite a few people use aids that they should not use out of laziness. So I disagree with your statement.
I'm also thinking the general public wouldn't be interested in something that makes them look disabled.
this is pretty awesome for someone who is disabled/old/obese and the idea that you use the core muscles would be great for obese users who can't walk or ride a bike.
You don't seemed to have watched the video. You basically just said, "I saw a Segway with a chair. That seemed more practical and useful compared to this Segway with a chair."
There used to be the iBot, which looked like an amazing product for people using a wheelchair today - but it is discontinued.
I remember Michael Kaplan (a Microsoft guy, regularly linked from the old new things/Chen for character set/encoding/unicode stuff) praising his iBot in quite some posts.
The iBot was apparently reclassified as a class 2 medical device, which makes certification easier. Allegedly, it is being redesigned, and will go back into production.
Also, I think becoming that obese should be treated exactly the same as any other medical condition that needs a wheelchair?
Obviously having underlying psychological problems that need treating if you get yourself into that severe obesity, something that can be fixed completely if given the right treatment.
I thought this but the article title is "Ogo, a new take on personal transportation". I think I'm fine, unless the article title is wrong... It's been known to happen :-)
I'm really not sure why everyone is downvoting this!
It doesn't help that I'm hovering around 501 karma :-)
Seriously though I'll never use downvoting (apart from say, racist, homophobic, rude and extremely wrong comments) because I think it's bad for discussion; if your aim is blandness then I would say that downvoting is great but I still maintain that a comment with lots of people in disagreement (for it and against it) is an interesting comment, one that would probably add to the discourse.
as pg has said many times, it's OK to downvote for disagreement.
I try not to downvote for mere disagreement, though. There has to be something more to the comment that makes it not merely disagreeable, but a net negative to conversation. In this particular case, the Wall-E association serves to further the stigma for the disabled by emphasizing laziness, when part of the design for this device is to reduce stigma by creating a cool wheelchair.
sometimes downvotes aren't about what you believe, but about how clearly you say it, or how you fail to say it clearly enough to avoid critical misunderstandings.
Mopeds have some advantages over bicycles, as do motor scooters. Both were created after bicycles, and are considered personal transport. And plenty of people want personal transport who are unable to ride a bike.
It has come to this that able bodied men and women need a automated wheelchair to roam around! Wow. That shitty future that movies has shown is really here!
The inventor designed it for his paraplegic friend. It's clearly shown in the video from the beginning. The entire thrust of the video is about the item empowering disabled people.
One thing I noticed about the video introduction is the speaker is explicitly talking to the viewer as if he or she is not the target audience, e.g. "while you and I may take this for granted ..." and "the disabled are exactly the same as you and me ..."