loading subjects...
Ebook: Universal Design 2016: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future
loading...
Universal Design is the term used to describe the design of products and environments which can be used by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. It is not a euphemism for ‘designs for people with a disability’, but really is about designing to include all people, regardless of their age, ability, cultural background or status in life. However it remains the case that many designers and developers fail to understand the need for universal design and lack the skills needed to implement it.
This book presents papers from the 3rd International Conference on Universal Design (UD 2016), held in York, UK, in August 2016. The theme of the conference was: learning from the past, designing for the future, and it aimed to bring together policymakers, practitioners and researchers interested in the different strands of universal design to exchange ideas and best practice, review some of the developments in universal design from the last 20 years, and formulate strategies for taking the concept of universal design forward into the future. The book is divided into two sections. Section 1: About Universal Design, and Section 2: Universal Design In Practice.
The book will be of interest to all those whose work involves design, from the built environment and tangible products to communication, services and systems.
“Universal design provides a blueprint for maximum inclusion of all people” [7].
This statement is now nearly 20 years old. The present collection of papers from the 3rd International Conference on Universal Design (UD 2016) is testament to the fact that Universal Design is now benefitting from a climate that is more knowledgeable about, and possibly more accommodating of, individual differences between people. However, there are still many open issues, and much to be learnt from exchanging experiences between all stakeholders interested in Universal Design, be they policy makers, practitioners or researchers. This is due to the many changes in society, the environment and technology that have occurred in the last two decades.
In this collection of papers from the conference, we cover many areas of theory and practice of Universal Design, with applications from the built environment and tangible products, to communication, services, and system design issues. There are also papers about advocating and teaching Universal Design, debates about policy, and about codes, regulations and standards. We hope the collection is a useful way for policy makers, practitioners and researchers interested in these different strands of work to learn and exchange ideas and best practices, and to break down the “silos” that inevitably emerge in any group attempting to address a topic of mutual interest from many perspectives.
In gathering together these different strands, we also need to reflect on the current manifestations of Universal Design, and what implications there are for the years to come. We need to look back to where we came from, and to look forward to the future shaping of Universal Design.
With the benefit of nearly 20 years since the publication of the Principles of Universal Design
Principles of Universal Design Version 2.0 4/1/97. © Copyright 1997 NC State University, The Center for Universal Design, an initiative of the College of Design. Compiled by advocates of universal design, listed in alphabetical order: Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir Mullick, Elaine Ostroff, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly Story, & Gregg Vanderheiden https://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/sites/cud/content/principles/principles.html. https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm.
As with all concise definitions, it has been necessary to emphasise and add to this statement, for instance:
• Universal Design is really about including all people and not a euphemism for “design for those with a disability”. It is about products, services, and environments being usable, to the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, cultural background or status in life [1].
• The phrase “to the greatest extent possible” was added to counter criticism that Universal Design was a utopian ideal, and to underscore that Universal Design is a practical as well as conceptual approach.
• The focus of Universal Design is on mainstream products, services, and environments and not on adaptations or specialist products, services, and environments.
• Universal Design emphasises the need to design from the outset for the widest possible range of users, rather than try to make modifications later on, whether during the design process or after release.
• Products, services, and environments should also be aesthetically pleasing as well as non-discriminatory and non-stigmatising.
Most of these elaborations are enshrined in the Principles of Universal Design. This is a set of seven principles that were developed to lay out guidance for the design of environments, products and communications, to evaluate existing designs, and to educate both designers and consumers about the characteristics of more usable products and environments.
In addition, other terms have come into being, responding to the need to explain different aspects of the Universal Design spectrum. In 1998, at the “Designing for the 21st Century Conference” Ron Mace's presentation differentiated between the meanings and practices associated with the terms “Barrier-Free Design”, “Assistive Technology” and “Universal Design” [2].
At the turn of the millennium, “Design for All” was the term adopted by the European Commission which focused on ensuring that environments, products, services and interfaces of the Information Society Technologies (ISTs) work for people of all ages and abilities in different situations and under various circumstances [6, 8]. It spelt out the “adaptation or specialized design” with a three-part strategy:
• Design of IST products, services and applications which are demonstrably suitable for most of the potential users without any modifications.
• Design of products which are easily adaptable to different users (e.g. by incorporating adaptable or customisable user interfaces).
• Design of products which have standardised interfaces, capable of being accessed by specialised user interaction devices [6].
Alongside setting out this strategy, the definition of Design for All made a conscious effort to make the concept more widely acceptable by explaining how Design for All could benefit not just consumers of ISTs, but also producers, and give wider social and economic benefit. Amongst other things, adopting a Design for All approach would help deal proactively with the demographic trend of the aging population, and benefit businesses with increased sales of innovatively designed products that everyone could use. In short, Design for All advocated a policy of mutual benefit, where the “for all” descriptor included more than the user population.
However, as with the term Universal Design, Design for All was misinterpreted, and accused firstly of the impractical aim of trying to accommodate everyone without exception. Secondly, there was a confusion that Design for All in its insistence on minimizing adaptation, was advocating a “one design fits all” stance, evidenced by the question posed at the time “Could you imagine a pair of shoes being designed in such way that everybody would want to wear them?”
A preferred term to Design for All in the English-speaking European literature is “Inclusive Design”. Coined by Roger Coleman in 1994
RICA (Research Institute for Consumer Affairs) (2016) Inclusive Design: manufacturing, design, and retail expert views available from rica.org.uk.
Interestingly, in 2005, the British Standards Institute described Inclusive Design in its “Guide to Managing Inclusive Design” as “comprehensive, integrated design which encompasses all aspects of a product used by consumers of diverse age and capability in a wide range of contexts”
BS 7000-6:2005, Design management systems. Managing inclusive design. Guide. Inclusive Design Toolkit, What is Inclusive Design, Section: Comparison with Universal Design, http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign2/whatis/whatis.html#p3b. BS 7000-6, 2005. Design Management Systems: Managing Inclusive Design, BSi, London, UK. http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030142267.
With the term Inclusive Design, the notion that the design is of mutual benefit to all stakeholders, as in Design for All, was lost. It is perhaps telling that the Scandinavian countries with their tradition of collaborative and participatory design are the main supporters of the term Design for All as the most appropriate one to use [6]. It is a term no longer in such evident use by the European Commission. However, it is notable that in the proposal for what is being more commonly referred to as the European Accessibility Act, there is a somewhat awkward paraphrase “Accessibility following a ‘design for all’ approach”
Section 1.2, European Commission (2015) COM(2015) 615 final2015/0278 (COD) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services.
Of course, part of this alignment of terms and definitions is possibly a result of a move to try to consolidate terminology, driven by the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disability (UNCPRD) that uses the term Universal Design. European organisations such as the European Disability Forum (EDF) advocate using the term Universal Design instead of Design for All in order to be aligned to the UNCRPD. In fact, the European Accessibility Act specifically notes in its definitions section that “universal design” is also referred to as “design for all”
Art. 2, Para. 2, European Commission (2015) COM(2015) 615 final2015/0278 (COD) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services.
Other terms that are used in this area include “Accessibility” which is often connected to developing regulations, codes, standards, policies and procedures to provide societal inclusion to people with disabilities. This approach implies that accessibility is a property or a quality that can be incorporated into products, environments, services, and systems. Thus we speak of “accessible hotel rooms” and “accessible formats” for documents. A major characteristic of this approach is that products, environments, services, and systems can be independently used by people with a variety of abilities. “Accessible Design” is another term that refers to a design process in which the needs of people with disabilities are specifically considered. For instance, two standards from the International Standards Organization (ISO) have recently been developed with this term. The first specifies a method of calculation that can be applied to the design of visual signs and displays, so that they are clearly visible to older as well as younger people
ISO 24502:2010, Ergonomics – Accessible design – Specification of age-related luminance contrast for coloured light. ISO 24501:2010, Ergonomics – Accessible design – Sound pressure levels of auditory signals for consumer products.
A further common use of the term accessibility is in “Web Accessibility”. The use of the Web by people with disabilities has received attention since early in its development. For example, Paciello [3, 4, 5] discussed how the Web can be made accessible to users with a range of different disabilities. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the international organisation that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web, has always taken a very strong stance in promoting the Web as an accessible technology. It established the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) in 1997 to work on this topic and develop supporting guidelines. The WAI gives a definition of Web Accessibility as:
“…people with disabilities can use the Web. More specifically, Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web, and that they can contribute to the Web. Web accessibility also benefits others, including older people with changing abilities due to aging”.
An interesting point to note in this definition is that contributing to the Web is particularly highlighted. Thus the idea that people with disabilities should not only be consumers of information from the Web, but also be able to create information for others, an aspect often forgotten by developers.
Two further terms related to accessibility and Universal Design are eAccessibility and eInclusion, now Digital Inclusion. eAccessibility refers to the ease of use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as the web. It refers to a wide spectrum of ICTs used in different application areas, such as elearning, ehealth, and ecommerce. By contrast, eInclusion can be said to be more of a policy based approach. It was defined by the European Commission as “inclusive Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and the use of ICT to achieve wider inclusion objectives and policies aiming at both reducing gaps in ICT usage and promoting the use of ICT to overcome exclusion”
Riga Ministerial Declaration (11 June 2006) on eInclusion.
So what of the future for Universal Design? Some areas requiring more research and thought from the Universal Design community include the issues of people living with allergies, chronic diseases and mental health conditions, topics we are pleased to say are already in evidence in these proceedings. Most of all, we circle around to the need to involve and understand people in all their diversity and complexity. They have unique insights and experiences.
There is still a great need to promote Universal Design and related principles in mainstream design and development areas. It remains the case that most designers and developers fail to understand the need for Universal Design and lack the skills to implement such designs. There is also a great need to facilitate designers and developers working together with people with diverse abilities, ages, cultural backgrounds and status in life, so that collaborative and participatory design can take place. Often there is an interest from designers and developers to work with a variety of people, but no means for this to happen. We also need further methods for harnessing participation from the whole range of people, bringing them into design and development processes. Increasingly, we see user participation and co-design as key terms in Universal Design.
A number of papers in these proceedings already indicate that the Universal Design community is sensitive to these needs. We hope you will find this collection inspiring and helpful as we continue to work in this highly challenging and increasingly pervasive area.
Helen Petrie
Jenny Darzentas
Tanja Walsh
David Swallow
Leonardo Sandoval
Andrew Lewis
Christopher Power
Editors of the Proceedings
References
[1] Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J., Nicolle, C. and Zaphiris, P. 2016. Rethinking universal accessibility: a broader approach considering the digital gap. Universal Access to the Information Society, 15(2), 179–182.
[2] Mace, R. 1998. A Perspective on Universal Design Designing for the 21st Century: An International Conference on Universal Design (speech excerpt prepared by Reagan, J. available at https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_us/usronmacespeech.htm.
[3] Paciello, M.G. 1996a. Making the World Wide Web Accessible for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Florida Libraries, 39(5).
[4] Paciello, M.G. 1996b. Making the Web Accessible for the Deaf, Hearing, and Mobility Impaired. Florida Libraries, 39, 83–91.
[5] Paciello, M.G. 1996c. The Web and People with Disabilities: Cutting Edge Developments. Florida Libraries, 39.
[6] Persson, H., Åhman, H., Yngling, A. and Gulliksen, J. 2015. Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts – one goal? On the concept of accessibility – historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal Access to the Information Society, 14, 505–526.
[7] Story, M., Mace, R. and Mueller, J. 1998. The Universal Design File: Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities. Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design, NC State University.
[8] Stephanidis, C. 2001. User interfaces for all: new perspectives into human-computer interaction. In Stephanidis, C. (Ed.), User Interfaces All Concepts Methods Tools, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
The public discussion about accessibility in the built environment has been recently very ambivalent in Finland. Finnish Government programme includes 26 key projects and one of them links with deregulation of building legislation. In addition to this, according to the preliminary media analysis carried out by The Finnish Association of People with Physical Disabilities (FPD) the traditional media in Finland seems to give somewhat more support to those opposing accessibility than those supporting it. FPD wanted to find out people's attitudes towards accessibility and the possible disadvantages they see in promoting accessibility. The purpose was to get background information to influence on attitudes and to launch a positive attitude campaign. FPD commissioned a survey about the accessibility in built environment and find out that surprisingly, based on the survey, the opinions of the majority of people are not as negative as expected.
In 2015, a research study on student product development projects was conducted at the Norwegian University of Science (NTNU) in Gjøvik. The student projects lasted eight weeks and were done by twenty-four third year occupational therapy students and twenty-four third year industrial design students forming eight cross-professional project groups. The theme was welfare technology from a Universal Design perspective. Problems to work on for each group were given by the occupational therapy students, based on problems they had experienced or identified while doing their practice training periods in municipal healthcare facilities and in the homes of patients. A general objective of this study was to build a knowledge base for increased cross-professional cooperation among students in higher education. One aim was to better prepare the students for their future professional roles. Another aim was for the students to acquire knowledge, understanding, and experience on how to work in a project with issues related to the knowledge and skills they had previously acquired in their education. Another aim was to reinforce their capabilities and competences regarding use of Universal Design in the area of welfare technology. The main result of the study is extended knowledge on how to form and carry out cross-functional project work in a university environment.
Universal Design is an innovative strategy, and should therefore be an integrated subject within a wider program of study. This is the idea behind an annual interdisciplinary seminar and exercise on universal design in the built environment, a cooperation between the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Engineering at Bergen University College. In 2014 we moved to a new campus. We now use the campus to illustrate universal design, and to evaluate the accessibility of the campus. This paper shows that first year students possess significant potential when it comes to evaluate accessibility in the built environment.
This paper highlights the importance of interdisciplinarity for innovation and change in the work of Universal Design in housing. It puts particular emphasis on a grant provided by the Norwegian State Housing Bank (NSHB).
This paper details a set of self-supporting and illuminated panels that work together but independently in order to emphasize the explanation of building features and activities that are based on Universal Design guidelines. The exhibition is based on two structures that are arranged in semi-circles (A and B). They are integrated to form a carpeted path where the visitor will be gradually exposed to the concepts related to the principles of Universal Design. Following the sequence of three-dimensional objects and swivelling box elements that support the tactile information on the subject, it is expected that visitors become familiar with each of the principles being demonstrated. Operated by a control system consisting of keys with colour signage, textures and high relief, the panel on the control table allows the user to choose information about paired relationships between some of seven principles contained in printed images about the architectural design on the set of panels. The effectiveness of the composition can be verified by the time people remain enough to hear, see and touch the kiosks for all the information, or by successive visits users make to the setting.
It can be difficult to understand accessibility, if you do not have the personal experience. The Accessibility Centre ESKE produced short videos which demonstrate the meaning of accessibility in different situations. Videos will raise accessibility awareness of architects, other planners and professionals in the construction field and maintenance.
In 1998 Molly Follette Story, James Mueller and Roland Mace published the book The Universal Design File; that can be considered the result of a long way, started by Mace in 1985, towards a design approach based on the principles of Universal Design. In 2010 the Centre for Active Design publishes the Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health in Design.
Between these two milestones, this article offers some ideas about the evolution of the universal approach to design.
Assuming that Universal Design approach can present limits, this article aims to reflect on the relationship between universal and particular in developing a theoretical approach to architecture and design, supporting the idea that the wide gray area of the population who need specific access solutions can find answers to their needs only through successive adjustments, time by time plugged on universal solutions. This implies a process of requirement-based retrofitting of existing spaces and goods, to get qualities or perfecting performances otherwise inadequate.
From this perspective the project for accessibility should be seen as a never ending process, and not a fix and final product, and Universal Design should be considered as a methodological approach ideally tending towards accessibility as a goal.
Having this in mind, the article explores the issues related to how to blend universal and particular in a human centred design strategy, how to combine design actions and awareness by the users to allow an effective mutual adaptation between people and their living environment.
The article aims to be further food for thought regarding research to be implemented in future works.
The critical design method aims to discuss ways of opening up the (design) brief when planning, designing, building, operating and maintaining the future of the built environment – public as well as private, indoor as well as outdoor. Focusing on “designials” (fundamental forms of design being), the methodology intends to illustrate the fact that objects; including buildings, parks, transportation systems, etc. may directly encroach upon certain “existentials” (fundamental forms of human being) – thus shed light on how a design process is normally conducted, and furthermore, how that affects people's existential well-being.
The national policy in Norway have since the last part of the 1990-ies been organized in programs that erected actions including national authorities, municipalities, regional authorities and private enterprises. What have we gained by our national activities to mainstream inclusive and accessibility policy for persons with reduced capability through the principles of Universal Design? Have we made society accessible to everyone and prevented discrimination. Are the results visible?
We can measure results on several sectors, inter alia public buildings, outdoor areas, central communication hubs, public transport and the occurrence plans for Universal Design in municipalities and regions. Through several programs and action plans the Norwegian government has developed a sectoral approach for including persons with disabilities in the society. The majority of ministries have participated in these plans. Local initiatives, local councils for disabled people, and later on municipalities and county administrations were supported by national authorities as complements to regulations and laws. In addition, guidelines and assisting funds were used. The main objective was to redefine the national policy, using better defined national goals and introducing Universal Design to replace accessibility as the basic tool. The mainstreaming of the accessibility policy, where Universal Design was included in relevant sectors and activities, was a crucial part of the strategy. The national policy was organized in programs that erected actions focusing on how to reach, inspire and include municipalities and regional authorities in their own struggle for Universal Design. Through the mainstream approach ministries have both earmarked economic transfers to their own agencies and used steering documents guide to these agencies how to implement Universal Design in their advisory services, in practicing laws and regulations and in their own planning and building activities.
Since becoming a democracy, South African legislation has changed. The South African Constitution and legislation governing the structures and mandate of the different spheres of government aim towards municipalities needing to become more developmental in the way it serves the community with a specific focus on the poor and vulnerable. It sets ideals to overcome the inheritance of the past. However, how to do this is sometimes still unclear. This paper is a case study illustrating how Stellenbosch Municipality overcame obstacles of perceived legislative restrictions, silo operations and antiquated thinking, working towards social inclusion for all its citizens. In moving away from disability accessibility and embracing universal access as a way in which to deliver basic services, Stellenbosch discovered the beginning of the process of overcoming the negative legacy of the past. Understanding the Universal Design principles and approach illustrated how South African municipalities can promote the concept of our rainbow nation as envisioned in the Constitution.
The municipalities and regional authorities are in general resources for achieving national goals. Their management and works are crucial to the development and implementation of Universal Design. Through several programmes, national authorities have worked for activating the local and regional levels. The results are visible. We can see a long-term national strategy to help make society accessible to everyone and prevent discrimination. Participating municipalities and regional authorities are now able to create their own policy and strategies and implement solutions. The national programs have involved interested and motivated municipalities. All the 18 counties in Norway have been involved more or less in different periods and the same with up to a third of the about good 400 municipalities.
The political line in Swedish disability policy advocates the use of generalized solutions in order to fit potential needs of the largest possible group of people and, where needed, special solutions to bridge the remaining gap between the generalized level of accessibility and additional individual needs. This is referred to as the disability perspective (DP). The DP has embraced two tracks: one that pertains to generalized solutions that promote an overall high level of accessibility and usability, and another one that pertains to different types of individual support for people with disabilities. The present study is a self-reflective inquiry on key issues for the development of future disability policies. Five experts entered a discussion about the pros and cons concerning the DP. This confirmed or refuted assumptions, dilemmas, themes as well as reoccurring patterns in the political viva voce procedure that has formed the contemporary disability policy. Over the course of time, the experts believed that the DP had nurtured a belief that there is a dichotomy. This may have created an imbalance in the relation between the DP and policies such as those concerning healthcare and social care. With a clearer focus on interdependence, the experts saw synergies between needs for assistive technology, assistive products and the requirements for the built environment.
Rogaland Council has adopted Universal Design as an overriding principle for all planning and development in the county. Private stakeholders and public agencies collaborated in the development of a successful County Plan for Universal Design that has been recognised as an example of good practice by Norway's public authorities. The plan provides guidelines for both state and municipal planning and operations in several policy areas from public transport to educational and cultural buildings to sports and recreation areas. One of the main contributions of the plan is an evaluation methodology built on the “TEK-10” national standard, and developed with the participation of authorities, experts, staff from municipalities and representatives of organisations for people with disabilities. This method is used to assess the accessibility and compliance with Universal Design principles of different destinations. This information is then published in the dedicated website www.tilgjengelighet.no which serves as an information channel for the general public about accessibility to various locations in the county. A community engagement method has been developed for including user groups in the design process for both new buildings and renovation projects. Representatives for user groups are chosen by the Council's Disability Committee, and these help to inform the planning and construction process. The plan also emphasises the development of knowledge and skills in Universal Design through educational programmes for secondary schools and colleges as well as training opportunities for councillors. This paper summarises the plan's rationale and the progress made until now.
Deregulation is on the political agenda in the European countries. The Norwegian building code related to universal design and accessibility is challenged. To meet this, the Norwegian Building Authority have chosen to examine established truths and are basing their revised code on scientific research and field tests. But will this knowledge-based deregulation comply within the framework of the anti-discrimination act and, and if not: who suffers and to what extent?
The Norwegian state has been working for more than fifteen years on various ways of improving accessibility for the general public. An important part of this work has been to develop new legislation and other forms of formal guidelines to reduce physical barriers. The new Anti-Discrimination and Accessibility Act, Obligation to ensure general accommodation (universal design), came into force January 2009, and introduces some complicated dilemmas, especially when it states: “When assessing whether the design or accommodation entails an undue burden, particular importance shall be attached to the effect of the accommodation on the dismantling of disabling barriers, the necessary costs associated with the accommodation, the undertaking's resources, whether the normal function of the undertaking is of a public nature, safety considerations and cultural heritage considerations.” What is an “undue burden” in relation to architectural visual qualities and to the historical heritage expressed in buildings and townscapes? This paper will look into these dilemmas by discussing specific cases from some cities in different countries. What kinds of procedure are suitable and decisive when it comes to these complicated questions? Is this a task exclusively reserved for professionals, or should the voice of lay people be heard and taken into consideration? By presenting examples from architecture and landscape architecture, I will show how universal design even can be implemented in old buildings and environments. The paper will argue for more focus on procedures than just physical solutions. The procedures should be based on accepted principles for changing historical monuments, such as wholeness, readability, reversibility and sustainability.
The research project ‘An analysis of the accessibility requirements’ studies how Danish architectural firms experience the accessibility requirements of the Danish Building Regulations and it examines their opinions on how future regulative models can support innovative and inclusive design – Universal Design (UD). The empirical material consists of input from six workshops to which all 700 Danish Architectural firms were invited, as well as eight group interviews. The analysis shows that the current prescriptive requirements are criticized for being too homogenous and possibilities for differentiation and zoning are required. Therefore, a majority of professionals are interested in a performance-based model because they think that such a model will support ‘accessibility zoning’, achieving flexibility because of different levels of accessibility in a building due to its performance. The common understanding of accessibility and UD is directly related to buildings like hospitals and care centers. When the objective is both innovative and inclusive architecture, the request of a performance-based model should be followed up by a knowledge enhancement effort in the building sector. Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives is suggested as a tool for such a boost. The research project has been financed by the Danish Transport and Construction Agency.
In Sweden, governmental agencies and bodies are required to implement a higher level of accessibility in their buildings than that stipulated by the National Building and Planning Act (PBL). The Swedish Agency for Participation (MFD, Myndigheten för delaktighet) develops holistic guidelines in order to conceptualize this higher level of accessibility. In conjunction to these guidelines, various checklist protocols have been produced. The present study focuses on the efficiency of such checklist protocols. The study revolved around the use of a checklist protocol in assessments of two buildings in Stockholm: the new head office for the National Authority for Social Insurances (ASI) and the School of Architecture at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). The study included three groups: Group 1 and Group 2 consisted of 50 real estate managers employed by the ASI, while Group 3 consisted of three participants in a course at the KTH. The results were similar in all of the groups. The use of the checklist protocol generated queries, which related mainly to two factors: (1) the accompanying factsheet consisted of textual explanations with no drawings, photographs or illustrations and (2) the order of the questions in the checklist protocol was difficult to correlate with the two buildings' spatial logic of accessing, egressing and making use of the built space.
Norwegian central government has for the last decade increasingly focused on universal design. Fundamental changes in the Norwegian building code and corresponding regulations in 2010 give an apparently clear framework for the implementation of accessibility and universal design. However, it seems that neither increased awareness of accessibility requirements and universal design, nor compliance with the building code guarantees improvement of housing quality and usability. The Norwegian regulations have gone further in the direction of performance requirements than most other countries. This applies to all types of requirements, including requirements for usability, functionality and accessibility. Hardly any specifications are to be found in the regulations. Ideally, this lack of specifications should give designers the opportunity to develop innovative answers and hence to respond to different contexts and needs. Still, many architects and builders ask for clear specifications, in order to simplify and speed up design processes and make control of solutions easier. Many architects understand guidelines as minimum requirements, and are thus reproducing the identical solutions without considering the context and the needs of the users. They see accessibility as another regulatory pressure and requirements as restrictions rather than positive incentives. However, there are examples of designers who have internalised the regulatory framework and thus are able to create and integrate inclusive design in their daily work. Based on recent research conducted by SINTEF Building and Infrastructure and financed by the Norwegian State Housing Bank, this paper presents examples of practice where dwellings have been developed within a framework of universal design. Focus of the research has been on the approach of the design team and their understanding and use of the regulatory framework in order to create better homes in dialogue with the building authorities. Main objectives are to:
– Contribute to better understanding of universal design as a tool and a method to improve housing quality and usability
– Investigate the conditions for developing dwellings with innovative and functional solutions in compliance with the building code
– Discuss challenges in interpreting the requirements and in taking the needs of various resident groups into account
This paper includes some criticism in analysis of the development and implementation of the national standards for accessibility of the built environment in Brazil, i.e., the NBR9050. Currently, the 2015 version of it resembles an encyclopaedia including a variety of exotic contributions gathered historically from different sources; however, that characteristic makes it work like a puzzle that keeps alive prejudices about users' needs and disabilities. Besides, there are conflicts between recommended ideas and previous requirements from older versions. The definition of Universal Design has been published since 2004, but there is still no indication of how to make the principles work in practice. Therefore, it is very hard for city officials to assess quality of environments, and professionals have serious constraints to explore their skills further while addressing users' diversified needs. Certainly, the current NBR9050 requires further editorial work. Nevertheless, an important decision is necessary: it is important to organize information so that readers may identify in each topic whether Universal Design application can be achieved or whether the proposed technical solution may lead to construction of limited spatial adaptation and reach only some poor accommodation of users with uncommon needs. Presenting some examples in context of socially inclusive environments, the newer revised version of NBR9050 is necessary to explain about pitfalls of bad design of accessibility for discriminated disabled users. Readers should be able to establish conceptual links between the best ideas so that Universal Design could be easily understood.
The concept of Universal Design has received increasing appreciation over the past two decades. Yet, there are very few existing designs that cater to the needs of extraordinary users who experience some form of physical challenge. Previous work has shown promising results on involving users with physical challenges as lead users – users who have the potential to identify needs that could be latent among the general population. It has also been shown that older adults can act as such lead users. They can help design universal product ideas that satisfy both older adults and the general population. In this paper we build on this and examine if involving older adults in the design phase can result in universal products, products preferred by both older adults and the general population over a current option. Eighty-nine older adult participants and thirty-four general population participants took part in the study. Products were redesigned and prototyped based on the needs of older adults and tested among both populations. Results show that, although older adults and the general population did share certain needs and demands, the majority of older adults had needs and demands that were different from those of the general population. However, even though the needs differed between the populations, on average 89% of the general population participants preferred products designed based on design needs expressed by older adults over the current option. This provides further evidence supporting the use of older adults in designing products for all.
Testing with users can identify more issues than other testing methods. Many researchers have argued for the importance of user testing in Universal Design. However, testing Universal Design with diverse users poses many challenges. In this paper we will share our experience with testing the Universal Design of a public media website with real users. We discuss the challenges faced and lessons learned in the process.
Universal Design seeks to contribute to the sustainability and inclusivity of communities and co-design and participatory methods are a critical tool in this evolution. The fact that technology permeates our society is undeniable and the form and materials that technology takes in turn shape the basics of human life such as being able to shower and toilet oneself. In contrast, the various existing approaches to co-design have very different sorts of metaphysical, epistemological and normative assumptions behind them. As a result, design has recognised a set of problems surrounding the position of the “user” in design innovation. Additionally, there are many different perspectives on technology and the role of technology in co-design methods. Consequently, there are a number of different ways of conceiving of the “problem” of integrating technologies into co-design methods. Traditionally, participatory design has been viewed as merely the insertion of a more public dialog of the potential target market within technological design practices. Our research indicates that most if not all co-designers rely on their own personal and collective knowledge and experience and that if this is not actively explored as a part of a co-design methodology that both participation and innovation will be less than hoped for. For instance, assuming only known fixtures, fittings with current codes and standards is unlikely to result in product innovation.
The proportion of older adults in the population is rapidly increasing and the proportion of younger adults to care for them is decreasing. Part of the solution to support older adults in living independently is to provide them with appropriate assistive technologies. To develop technologies that are effective for older adults we need methodologies that are appropriate for working with this user group. Yet there is little systematic research on how to work with older adults and how to adapt methods already used with younger adults. This paper reports on three case studies which investigated the use focus groups, expert evaluations and user evaluations with older adults. In the case of focus groups, the size of the focus group was investigated; for expert evaluations, an existing set of heuristics for evaluating apps for older adults was investigated; for user evaluations, a low-fidelity prototype design was evaluated using think-aloud protocols.
