Building Age-Tech Solutions That Actually Work

Does the technology put the older adult in control?

Good technology supports decisions, it never makes them. Every solution we evaluate must preserve the older adult’s right to choose, adjust, and opt out at any time.

Does this product treat older adults as capable, whole people?

Ageism is often designed in without anyone noticing. We evaluate every product through the lens of the person using it — their worth, their competence, and their voice.

Does the technology protect without restricting?

Safety that comes at the cost of independence is not a solution. We ask whether a product fails gracefully, and whether the older adult feels safer or simply more surveilled.

Was this designed with older adults or just for them?

There is a significant difference. True usability means the product fits real older adult lives: vision, hearing, dexterity, and cognition included.

Can the technology explain itself in plain language?

If a family cannot understand why a system behaved as it did, trust breaks down. We evaluate whether organizations are honest about what their technology collects, its limitations, and how to raise a concern.

Was this technology designed to prevent ageism, or does it embed it?

Ageism is the most socially normalized form of prejudice. When embedded in AI systems, it becomes AI Ageism: design choices, training data, and governance frameworks that systematically disadvantage older adults. This includes assuming older adults cannot use technology, designing for younger users and adapting rather than co-designing from the start, and failing to include gerontological expertise on development teams.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOUR PRODUCT

We ask whether older adults were in the room when decisions were made, not just recruited for final usability testing. Were they testing prototypes or validating finished products? We look for gerontological expertise on your team, documented co-design processes with demographic detail, and whether your product has been tested for ageist language and age-based performance disparities. Participation at the end is not the same as participation from the start.