A Case Study on Curb Cuts & Sidewalks

In the 1970s and ’80s, disability advocates fought for simple, life-changing changes to the built environment — like curb cuts on sidewalks. At the time, these requests were seen as niche accommodations, aimed solely at people who used wheelchairs.

But once implemented, curb cuts revealed a profound truth: when you design for the margins, you design for everyone.

The Transformation¶

Installing curb cuts — the small ramps that connect sidewalks to the street — was a direct response to the disability rights movement, and later mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. What happened next surprised many:

• Parents with strollers navigated sidewalks more easily.
• Delivery workers with carts moved faster and with less strain.
• Travelers with luggage, kids on bikes, and seniors with walkers all benefited.
• Even runners and skateboarders found smoother transitions.

What was originally framed as “accommodation” became invisible infrastructure that lifted everyone.

Key Insight¶

Designing for a specific, under served user group can lead to systems that are more usable, intuitive, and humane for all.

Inspiration for Science: Redesigning How We Communicate Knowledge¶

Just as curb cuts reimagined sidewalks, we have the opportunity to rethink scientific standards, processes, and systems for a more inclusive, accessible, and impactful scientific enterprise.

The Challenge¶

Today’s scientific communication is often designed by and for a narrow audience — those already fluent in academic norms and technical systems. As a result:

• Early-career researchers struggle to navigate publishing norms.
• Policymakers and the public find science inaccessible or opaque.
• Scientists themselves wrestle with outdated workflows that stifle innovation.

The Parallel Opportunity¶

By intentionally designing for the edge cases — those under served — we can build a system that benefits everyone. What if we treated science communication like a sidewalk?

Just as cities were once designed for able-bodied individuals, today’s scientific communication systems are built for those fluent in its language, rules, and expectations. Peer-reviewed journals, submission portals, technical formatting requirements, and institutional processes often exclude more than they include.

Designing for accessibility in science might include:

• Interactive papers and dashboards: supporting learning styles beyond dense PDFs.
• Multimodal publishing: combining text, visuals, data, and code for deeper understanding.
• Open peer review: demystifying the gatekeeping process and increasing trust.
• Clear provenance of ideas: showing how data, methods, and interpretations evolve.
• Built-in support for reproducibility: so others can validate, adapt, and build on work easily.
• Human-first metadata: making search & discovery meaningful, not bureaucratic.

The Big Idea¶

Just as disability advocates changed the world by demanding access, we can learn from their bold vision — and bring that same spirit to the design of a movement for sharing scientific knowledge. Instead of designing scientific systems for the average user, what if we began at the edges? By focusing first on those facing the greatest barriers, could we create something more usable, inclusive, and powerful for everyone?

Curb cuts didn’t just solve a mobility challenge — they reshaped how we think about infrastructure itself. They represent a shift from reactive fixes to proactive design. A shift from seeing accessibility as an add-on to seeing it as a foundation. That change in mindset made room for an entirely new approach to public spaces — one that values inclusion as innovation.

How would we look at our systems differently? What with this lens would we change, or mindsets would we reframe?

Questions¶

• What are the curb cuts in science?
• How can we look at our systems differently?
• What mindsets can we reframe with this lens?