So, from my perspective as a narcoleptic, I can see this being really useful (and for any design researchers out there, this is also a great example of how segmenting users by diagnostic category is a good way to miss useful insights) https://twitter.com/GreggBeratan/status/1321817490708701185

The risk of missing important sounds like a fire alarm is also something that exists for narcoleptics and other folks with neurological sleep disorders.

And some narcoleptics do indeed find that tactile prompts wake them more effectively than auditory prompts (so will use vibrating alarms on their phone in the morning, for example).

When my narcolepsy was untreated, it was unsafe for me to go for walks alone, because I could experience automatic behaviours in response to noises - one time a car honked and I (quite literally) unconsciously started walking into traffic.

This was when I was living in the UK and at a certain point I came across this video by chance, which describes a little ridged knob on the bottom of pedestrian crossing button, which starts to spin when it's your turn to cross.

It was designed for deafblind folks, but I began using it because it gave me something to focus my attention on. As long as it wasn't spinning, I knew I couldn't cross yet, no matter what sounds registered on my semi-conscious brain.

Anyway, my verdict is #NotADongle and for any design researchers reading, the moral of the story is: don't ask "are you hearing impaired?" ask "are auditory stimuli inaccessible to you?*"

*Unless you're trying to learn about users' experiences in relations to their disability cultural affiliations/identities in which case that's what you should be asking them for instead

Also, as an addendum, don't be like ParaFree and make a wheelchair that would actually be fucking amazing for a lot of ambulatory chair users, but market it specifically to paraplegics https://www.designboom.com/design/parafree-modular-wheelchair-system-toolless-customization-09-08-2020/