A conversation between Keerthana, who leads the Avaz AAC product, and Lakshmi, who leads product marketing at Avaz. It started with a piece of tape.
Keerthana: I was thinking about the low-tech boards we have pasted around at home.
Say there’s one board at the main door about everything while stepping out. This has modes of transport we might go out in – Car. Bike. Auto, Bus.
Now imagine it’s raining.
I know that if she sees “auto,” she might choose auto.
And I really don’t want to go by auto in the rain.
Lakshmi: So, what are you thinking? Cover it with a tape?
Keerthana: I mean… I could.
And that’s where I got stuck.
Because I’m not just removing an option. I’m blocking her access to a word.
Lakshmi: Hmm.
Keerthana: If a speaking child says “auto,” you can say no. You can say it’s raining. You can argue about it.
But you can’t reach into their vocabulary and remove auto.
With a board, I technically can.
Lakshmi: Okay, but I do think speaking parents have a version of this.
Keerthana: How?
Lakshmi: Chocolate.
There’s chocolate in the refrigerator. My three-year-old has forgotten about it.
I am absolutely not going to say the word “chocolate.”
Keerthana: That is not the same thing.
Lakshmi: No, wait. I know it’s not the same thing.
But I’m thinking about what the word itself does.
Because that chocolate exists whether I say it or not. But the minute I say “chocolate”—
Keerthana: It’s back.
Lakshmi: Exactly.
The word brings the possibility back into the room.
Keerthana: Hmm. Yes.
And actually, that is very close to something I keep thinking about with AAC vocabulary.
A word can be there and also… not be there in the same way.
Lakshmi: What do you mean?
Keerthana: Think about what is immediately available on the home screen. And then think about fringe vocabulary.
There are things you see.
And there are things you have to remember exist.
Lakshmi: So, chocolate in the refrigerator.
Keerthana: Your chocolate is taking over this conversation.
Lakshmi: It’s a strong example.
Keerthana: Fine.
The chocolate may exist somewhere in the system. But if you don’t see it, you have to recall it. You have to remember the word. You have to know where it lives. You have to navigate to it.
That’s different from seeing “chocolate” in front of you and thinking: Oh. Yes. Chocolate.
Lakshmi: Which makes me wonder whether we think about AAC too much as the last step.
Like this:
First, I know what I want.
Then, I find the word.
Then, I say it.
Keerthana: Yes. And communication doesn’t always work that neatly.
Sometimes you see something and then you think of it.
Sometimes an option gives you an idea.
Sometimes the word itself is a prompt.
Lakshmi: So access isn’t just helping me express a choice I already made.
Keerthana: It reminds me or let’s me know that I can choose
Lakshmi: That feels quite big.
Keerthana: It is also very ordinary.
I see it at home.
There are moments when access to something changes what becomes possible in the conversation. Not because the thought wasn’t “inside” her. I don’t think we can make that assumption either way.
But because communication is happening in a moment. And what is available at that moment matters. Access to thought, access to memory recall, access to where this language exists in your mind as well as on the AAC”
Lakshmi: That’s interesting because with my three-year-old, I can manipulate the conversation a little, but I can’t manipulate her vocabulary.
I can avoid saying chocolate.
But she can still suddenly say chocolate.
Keerthana: Exactly.
Lakshmi: Whereas with an AAC user, someone else has often decided what is available in the first place.
Keerthana: Yes.
Someone chose the vocabulary.
Someone decided what sits on the home screen.
Someone decided what goes inside a folder.
Someone may decide what is hidden.
And sometimes those decisions are necessary. AAC systems need organisation. More is not automatically better. Visible is not automatically accessible.
But we should be honest that these are decisions about access.
Lakshmi: Which brings us back to your auto.
It’s raining.
You don’t want her to choose auto.
Keerthana: I really don’t.
Lakshmi: But perhaps the answer is not to remove auto.
Keerthana: Perhaps the answer is that she gets to choose it.
And I get to say no.
Lakshmi: That sounds exhausting.
Keerthana: Parenting.
Lakshmi: Fair.
Keerthana: But that’s the thing, right?
Access to a word does not mean access to everything you ask for.
It means access to asking.
Lakshmi: And disagreeing.
Keerthana: And insisting.
Lakshmi: And making a terrible transport choice in the rain.
Keerthana: Absolutely.
We started with an auto on a low-tech board.
Then came chocolate.
Somewhere between the two, we found ourselves talking about a question we keep returning to at Avaz:
Does AAC only help express a thought after it has formed? Or can access itself shape what becomes possible to think about, choose and say in a moment?
We don’t think the answer is “put every word everywhere.”
But there is a gap between what is motivating or incentivising to express from the communicator’s POV and what the partner wants to hear or teach.
Having said that, it’s not a straight forward solution.
For many AAC users, another person has had some role in deciding which words are available, where they are available, and how easily they can be reached.
That is a lot of power to hold.
Because there is a difference between:
You can’t have that.
and
You can’t say that.
And perhaps access is not only about giving someone the words for a choice they have already made.
Sometimes, seeing the word is what gives the choice a chance to exist.
