Access is more than a download

A design file can travel around the world in seconds. The ability to make something from it is much slower.

To really use that file you need tools, materials, space, time and enough understanding to recognize a dangerous mistake. Often you also need a person who answers the question the documentation didn’t think of. When we say a design is accessible because it can be downloaded, we’re counting the easiest part of the trip.

I learned a small version of this with exercise. Nobody ever forbade me from going to the gym, and I still quit 7 times. What worked was putting a bench and a barbell 10 meters from my bed. The permission was always there, and what stopped me was the traveling and the packing.

Open hardware already gets a part of this right. The Open Source Hardware Definition is about the design being available and about the freedom to study, modify, distribute, make and sell it, and it asks for real documentation, so a photo of the finished object isn’t enough.

That still leaves the distance between permission and capacity. You can have every legal right to modify a machine and none of the equipment. A community can have a workshop and no money for the person who teaches people to use it safely.

Fab Labs treat access as an organizational problem too. The Fab Foundation describes a network built around shared tools, shared knowledge and public access, with responsibilities for safety, operations and passing the knowledge on. Hackerspaces work on the same idea (I started one, QuestSpace).

For creative AI this matters because removing one barrier can hide the others. A tool can spare you from learning a complicated interface and at the same time make you dependent on a subscription, an internet connection and the provider’s rules about what you’re allowed to do.

I don’t think dependence can be removed completely. A woodworking shop depends on its suppliers and a software project on its maintainers. What I care about is whether I understand the dependency and whether I could replace it.

Take two ways of sharing a useful device. One is a beautiful file with no explanation. The other is a rougher file with a list of substitute parts, notes about common failures and a place to ask questions. The second one gives people more freedom, even if the first looks more complete.

So I’d measure a creative tool also by what stays with the person after the session ends: - Did they learn something they can use elsewhere? - Can they keep their work? - Can somebody else continue it? - What happens if the service disappears?

Publishing a design is a good start. Making it usable for people who aren’t like its author is a separate job, and usually the harder one.