Here is my pithy little thought for the day, because the logical leap has been perplexing me (I made the mistake of feeding a troll). If people are afraid of looking different and so reject assistive technology on sight for that reason, or if the technology looks like it might actually require some use (e.g. touching it or reading directions) to familiarize oneself with it and is rejected for that reason, that says nothing about the effectiveness of the technology itself. It doesn’t indicate that the technology is defective. It just indicates a particular user’s aesthetic preferences at best, or at worst laziness or prejudice (at least if you’re of the bridge persuasion).
You can’t say, “Oh, this device will never work for anybody and shouldn’t be marketed because I talked to so-and-so and they said they hated it because they used it for 2 minutes and they were slow at it, so anybody else who wants to try this device will always be slow at it too.” Huge, cloying generalization.
Or, “If you use this technology, you’re admitting that you’re one of those HANDICAPPED people.” Well, um, yeah. “Handicapped” isn’t the word I use on myself, but I am unable to use standard computer equipment or do certain other things. So I have my own sort of tech toolbox. End of problem, for home use anyway. Not such a bad thing to be.
(These aren’t verbatim troll-isms, but their substance.)