For a visually impaired wearer, clothing access can begin before they touch a fastening. A published South African account raises a more fundamental question: can someone identify and choose the clothes they want to wear?
A button can be redesigned without addressing the first obstacle someone encounters when getting dressed.
For Thobila Nxuzula, identified in a 2023 Grocott’s Mail report as the visually impaired director of Upliving Disability Movement Makhanda, one priority was access to information through touch. He called for clothing incorporating Braille, linking it to blind people’s ability to develop their own style and dress without assistance.
“Ask the wearer what the garment should tell them before deciding what it should do.” Omiren Styles Editorial Intelligence
His account shifts the starting point. Before asking whether a garment opens easily, a designer may need to ask how its wearer identifies it, distinguishes it from another and makes a choice.
This is not a complete account of Nxuzula’s wardrobe or daily routine. The published reporting does not provide one. It does, however, identify a priority that a fastening-led discussion of adaptive clothing could miss: choice.
Think about your own morning for a moment. Most of us pick clothes by sight without noticing it. That quiet act of choosing is exactly what this account asks designers to notice.
A South African disability advocate’s call for tactile clothing challenges fashion to consider how people identify, choose and wear their clothes.
Accessibility Begins Before Putting Clothes On
Fashion discussions can begin with a visible modification: a different closure, an altered opening or a changed silhouette. Nxuzula’s published comments introduce another stage: the relationship between the wearer and clothing information.
His colleague Zwethu Ndaza, identified as an uplifting board member, also called for more texture, describing its potential to help visually impaired people differentiate between garments. He proposed collaboration between clothing companies and disability organisations around elements such as embroidery and texture.
Those are related but distinct suggestions. Braille conveys written information to someone who reads it. A tactile difference can help distinguish objects without necessarily supplying the same information.
The reporting does not establish a tested clothing system, what information participants would want encoded or how widely any proposed solution would suit other wearers. The comments should therefore be treated as priorities and proposals, not proof that adding a particular feature makes a collection accessible.
The useful design question is more specific: what does this wearer need to know, and how would they prefer to access it?
A Garment Can Be Available Without Being Easy to Choose
A product can be available in the right size and still leave questions unresolved about how a person encounters it.
Nxuzula’s account asks fashion to consider identification and self-directed selection alongside the act of putting clothing on. Ndaza’s proposals similarly link tactile features to distinguishing garments, rather than treating accessibility solely as a fit adjustment.
That distinction broadens the brief without requiring every garment to carry the same solution.
A consultation might need to establish whether someone wants information about colour, garment type, orientation or another characteristic. These are questions to investigate with the person concerned, not needs to assign to Nxuzula or to visually impaired people generally, based on the published article.
The difference between asking and assuming is central. A feature can be technically possible without being the feature its intended wearer values most. Clear product information matters here too, which is why we point readers to our guide on what a heritage fashion product page should clarify.
From a Stated Need to a Tested Design
Grocott’s Mail reported that Nxuzula and Ndaza began fundraising in 2019 for equipment to produce Braille-inclusive clothing but had not raised enough to buy it. According to their account at the time, funding received in 2020 covered existing projects and stipends rather than the proposed equipment.
That history explains an obstacle reported in 2023. It should not be presented as a statement about the organisation’s finances or activities in 2026.
It also reveals a gap between identifying a problem and establishing a workable product. The source records an ambition, not an independently evaluated garment.
A stronger design assessment would require examining the proposed feature with intended users. What information does it provide? Can it be located and interpreted as intended? Does the wearer find it useful? Does it remain usable after ordinary garment care? Claims about how a fabric or finish performs deserve the same scrutiny, as we explain in how to verify a fashion brand’s fabric claims.
These are evaluation questions, not results established by the source.
Other Wearers May Begin Somewhere Else
The same report included perspectives that complicate any single definition of adaptive fashion.
Nadine McKenzie, identified as Unmute Dance Company’s artistic director and an inclusive dance teacher, argued that adaptive fashion required attention to shoppers’ needs rather than merely producing a line labelled inclusive. Drawing on her perspective as a disabled person, she suggested possibilities including garments accommodating amputated limbs, different fabrics for sensitive skin and trousers that could be put on and removed more easily by some wheelchair users.
These suggestions should not be collapsed into a universal checklist. They describe different relationships between clothing, bodies and activities.
Costume designer Shiba Sopotela, who discussed her work with Unmute, offered a useful principle: “For me it was working with the bodies that I have. The concept remained the same. The end product was just different.”
Her statement concerns her practice in a particular setting. Its relevance here is methodological: begin with the people involved rather than assuming that an established garment needs only one additional feature.
What a Wearer-Led Brief Would Ask
The published accounts suggest a different sequence for developing a design brief.
First, establish the wearer’s priorities. The designer should not decide in advance that speed, fastening or dressing without help is necessarily the principal goal.
Second, identify the stage at which a difficulty occurs. Selecting, orienting, putting on, adjusting and removing clothing are separate activities. A change that addresses one may leave another untouched.
Third, agree on how success will be assessed. A brand’s explanation of an intended benefit is not the same as the wearer finding that benefit useful.
Finally, preserve room for taste. Nxuzula explicitly connected access with developing a personal sense of style. His published account was not simply a request to complete a task; it concerned a relationship with fashion.
The Omiren Argument
We argue that accessible design should begin with a person’s stated priorities, not with the modification a brand already knows how to make. Nxuzula’s published comments are instructive because they move attention towards identifying and choosing clothes. Focusing only on buttons would have missed the concern he actually raised.
The second principle is to distinguish a proposal from a demonstrated outcome. Braille, texture, and other modifications cannot be declared successful merely because they are intended to be inclusive. The reporting establishes what advocates requested and what practitioners suggested. It does not establish that a tested garment met those requests. Preserving that distinction makes the design discussion more accountable.
Finally, accessibility should not erase aesthetic agency. A wearer is not simply a body to accommodate or a difficulty to solve. Nxuzula’s connection between accessible information and personal style puts preference at the centre of the brief. The relevant question is not only whether someone can wear the garment, but whether they can help decide what they wear.
Start With the Question, Not the Feature
One published account cannot stand for every disabled person’s experience. Its value lies in its specificity.
In this case, the stated priority concerned tactile information and the ability to distinguish and choose clothing. Other contributors identified different requirements. Together, their accounts challenge the idea that accessibility can be established through a single visible modification.
A better starting point is to ask the person concerned directly: what would make this garment, or the process of choosing it, work better for you? Asking costs a designer very little, and it can change the whole brief.
Also Read:
- Textile Provenance: How to Protect the Cloth Makers Behind the Fabric
- After Africa Fashion Week London 2026: What Converted Into Orders, Stockists, Press or Partnerships?
- What Happens After a Fashion Showcase? The Measures That Prove Market Access
- The Beauty Retail File: What Is Required by Law, and What Is Required by a Buyer?
FAQs
Whose perspective anchors this article?
Thobila Nxuzula’s comments in Ruvesen Naidoo’s November 2023 Grocott’s Mail report. The publication identified him as the visually impaired director of Upliving Disability Movement Makhanda. This article does not present a new interview with him.
What did he ask clothing designers to consider?
He called for Braille-inclusive clothing and connected accessible information with developing personal style and dressing without assistance. His colleague Zwethu Ndaza also advocated texture to help differentiate garments.
Does the article establish that Braille is the right solution for every visually impaired wearer?
No. The source records particular advocates’ proposals, not a universally tested solution. It does not establish other wearers’ preferences or evaluate a finished clothing system.
Is accessible fashion only about making clothes easier to put on?
The published accounts identify broader concerns, including recognising garments, choosing what to wear, fabric preferences, and different dressing requirements. They support asking wearers about the whole experience rather than assuming the fastening is always the main issue.
