From the Editor: One of our members raised an interesting point with me this week about Changing Places toilets and whether they meet the principles of universal design. This is one of those situations where it isn’t easy to distinguish where universal design ends and specialised design begins. The European perspective is that inclusion is a continuum – a chain of inclusive thinking. At one end of the continuum are universally designed products, services and environments that almost anyone can use. At the other end are specialised assistive technologies and devices such as prosthetic limbs and speech synthesisers. Somewhere in the middle the two intersect. Some people need both specialised and universally designed products and environments.
Universal design needs specialised design for full inclusion
A simple example is ramps and level entries go together with mobility devices – a wheelchair user depends on both for achieving entry to a building. So where does that leave us with Changing Places (CP) toilets? The Changing Places website says their toilets are designed to “meet the needs of people with severe and profound disabilities”. It also says, “It is required that accredited Changing Places facilities be built in addition to and separate from required Unisex Accessible Toilets (see picture of signage). This is to ensure that the needs of both groups of toilet users are met without compromise”. This clearly puts Changing Places (CP) toilets at the assistive technology end of the continuum as as a specialised design for particular users. The toilet is therefore not universally designed because not everyone can use it due to the way it is designed. But CP toilets support universal design because in conjunction with other toilet types in the vicinity they provide equitable access for everyone to the surrounding environment. Consequently, everyone gets the benefits – everyone is included.However, where funds are limited, it would be easy to assume the CP toilet would work for all wheelchair users. Problems would arise with the drop-down grab bars, particularly for people with MS, Parkinson’s and others with balance problems. The accreditation for thesefacilitiesshould be through the Changing Places organisation without reference to the public accessible toilet standard (AS1428.1). The term “Lift and Change” toilets is being used in New South Wales to avoid the copyright issues. However, it leaves it open to misinterpretation of what the toilet is supposed to achieve and who it is for.
Australian Standard
Australian Standard for accessible public toilets (AS1428.1) does not cover Changing Places facilities as such. However, it has provision for “adult lift and change toilets”.The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design produced guidelines in 2024 to merge universal design thinking with specialised design.
Universal Design Guidelines: Changing Places
This set of guidelines comes from Ireland and aims to take the design beyond minimum standards. It covers every aspect you can think of from planning and building control to management and maintenance. The guidelines explain why some things need to be designed or placed in a certain way.The design and installation section is comprehensive. The management and maintenance section includes pre-visit information, staff training, and health and safety. The guidelines are downloadable in different formats. Another excellent resource from the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design.Changing Places (and similar) toilets give families a new freedom to participate in activities, both outdoor and indoor. These toilets facilitate greater participation and inclusion for individuals and families – a principle that universal design fully supports.Jane Bringolf, Editor
At a roundtable meeting following the 2014 Universal Design Conference in Sydney, Kay Saville-Smith shared her experience on universal design and affordability. She was happy to share her five key points about universal design in housing:
“The usual argument is that universal design is consistently unaffordable (by which they mean more costly) than poor design because of the difficulties of retrofitting the existing environment and lack of economies of scale. Actually, the reasons why universal design is seen as costly can add cost. Five points are interesting:
Most products are not designed but driven off existing tools, processes and organisational structures. To change these does require some investment (hump costs) but these are one off and should not be seen as an ongoing cost. Indeed, those changes can bring reduced costs in the long term through increased productivity etc.
The costs of poor design are externalised onto households, other sectors or hidden unmet need.
Comes out of an advocacy approach that pitches the needs of one group against another and treats universal design as special design etc.
Win-win solutions need to be built with the industry participants that are hungry for share not dominant players who have incentives to retain the status quo.
Universal design is different from design which is fashion based. The trick is to make universal design fashionable so no one would be seen dead without it.”
Her keynote presentationprovides more information about why it is so hard to get traction with universal design in housing. The picture is of Kay Saville-Smith.
When researching the topic of disability, how can researchers know if their methods are the right ones? Do all the standard academically accepted methods used in research projects suit this topic? Are they inclusive research methods?
Researchers with the lived experience of disability are few and far between, and then they are often schooled in the mainstream methods. So how can research methods be tested to show that they are doing the right job? Simple answer: involve people with disability from the start with the design of the research and again in the analysis. It’s one thing to do the job right (accepted methods), but it another to be doing the right job (the job that needs to be done).
Many event managers and venues have yet to get their head around their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act. While many public buildings may have access through the front door and accessible toilet, this does not make for an inclusive event. Did anyone think about a handrail on the steps to the podium, a lower lectern for a seated speaker, or what to do with the guide dog?
Venue owners and managers, caterers and equipment suppliers are yet to get up to speed with what is required. Meetings and Events Australia have a comprehensive handbook on accessible events which was written in consultation with the Human Rights Commission in 2012. However, it appears only to be available to members of the Association and is not visible on their web home page. Nevertheless, a Google search will also find the Accessible Events Guide. The Guide also has a checklist at the end.
Factors that many organisers might not think about are, a drinking bowl for an assistance dog, the way the event or meeting is promoted, and ensuring there is lighting on the face of speakers for lip readers.
Editor’s Note: While trying to think of everything to make the 2014 Universal Design Conference inclusive, we found the suppliers of the staging equipment did not have a handrail for the steps and the wheelchair ramp was too steep to climb without help. The one-size fits all lectern is also a problem. Rarely is there a lectern that a seated person or person of short stature can use.
The Center for Health Design has published an article based on designing for human needs. It advocates for age-friendly workplaces, person-centred healthcare, ageing in place and active living.
Central to the argument in their report is the application of universal design. “When designing for aging, there are great opportunities at hand to design for ourselves – for every age – for all. An ageing population is not all about Baby Boomers – in 2046 the oldest Millennials will be turning 65.
The Maslow hierarchy of needs (as shown in the diagram) makes an appearance with the claim that designers think about the lower tiers for the young and old and reserve the upper tiers for young and middle aged adults. But why can’t environments support social system, fun, happiness, and inspiration at the same time as being safe?
Universal design is discussed as sustainable design, the triple bottom line, ageing in place, the workplace, and healthcare. The report ends with “…universal design has the potential to bridge the gap between basic human rights and higher human needs – for everyone.” You can download the pdf, Universal Design: Designing for Human Needs – An issue brief on the impact of ageing.
A well designed kitchen is essential for all members of the household. Participating in food preparation is important part of everyday life in many cultures. So anyone who wants to join in with meal preparation should be able to do so.
While the Consumer Report website article was published in 2015, many of the ideas are still current. Storage, work spaces, sinks and taps, lights and power outlets, flooring, doorways and handles, appliances, cookware and utensils are all covered.
With a growing trend to update kitchens every 12-20 years, renovation time is the best time to think about the usability of the kitchen into the future.
Kitchens for later life
More than any room in the house, the kitchen needs to be a place where tasks can be done easily and efficiently. Kitchens are also an important area for social interactions during meal preparation and clean up. As people age, more thought needs to go into kitchen design to overcome issues such as reaching, bending, grasping and holding. However, this should not mean a complete kitchen renovation if these issues are considered in the original kitchen design.
Kitchen Living in Later Life: Exploring Ergonomic Problems, Coping Strategies and Design Solutions is the result of research from different disciplines in the UK. As an academic paper there are some technical references, but the reports of the interviews with older people are quite revealing. Reaching and bending caused the most problems, as well as grasping and lifting. Lighting was also an issue, especially for reading the small print on packaging. The article proposes solutions, some of them related to rearranging things for ease of use.
Ironing proved to be the most difficult task. An interesting study, particularly as we can all relate to both good and bad kitchen design and fitout. This is especially the case with, say, a broken wrist, or slipped disc, which can happen to anyone at any time.
A related topic is the work at the University of Cambridge Inclusive Design team and their onlineInclusive Design Toolkit.
Politicians and planners make frequent calls for older Australians to give up their three bedroom homes to make way for “working families”. The expect them to move into apartments. But is urban density the answer? Regardless of the ageist inference that older people are “hogging all the houses”, with the political focus on working families, little room is left to discuss the housing needs of older cohorts.
Research by Bruce Judd on downsizing found the majority of older people want to stay put, not move into apartments. But there still remains the question, will these homes support them in their latter years? Within the older cohorts the number of people with dementia is expected to rise significantly, but not much thought has been given to their housing needs.
This is a major work by Bruce Judd, Diana Olsberg, Joanne Quinn and Oya Demirbilek (2010). It challenges the often held assumption that older people are “taking up space” in big houses that they no longer need – assumptions that their homes are “underoccupied”.
This qualitative research shows a very different picture. When people retire, they typically spend more time at home (about 85% of their time), so it makes sense to have “spare” space for home activities, including accommodating family members who live away and come to visit. So downsizing isn’t the answer for everyone.
Three bedrooms and urban living are what most older people want. These are two of the key findings in a new Australian report from AHURI. Age specific housing is not a preference. So researchers suggest more innovation to attract the older cohort so they can age in place after all.
There was no mention of universally designed homes so that age-specific housing doesn’t become the only option. There was only a brief mention of homes being adaptable.
The title of the research paper is, Older Australians and the housing aspirations gap. There are three separate documents: an Executive Summary and a Policy Evidence Summary. The full report is also available from the AHURI website.
People with Down syndrome sometimes experience space in public and home environments in a different way to others. A study in Belgium of people with Down syndrome and building design revealed some interesting results.
For example, the separation of spaces is not always clear if there is no architectural delineation. Participants showed a preference for brightness, large windows, and illuminated objects and surfaces.
Privacy of space was also important, particularly quiet space for people with Down syndrome. Familiar landmarks and furniture were also important. The discussion section of the paper provides more insights that could help designers consider the intellectual perspectives of users, and not just for people with Down syndrome. The paper also makes links to universal design.
This paper develops an in-situ methodology to help architects insure better inclusion of people with Down syndrome all along all phases of the architectural design process. This methodology first offers architects some design keys in regard of how people with Down syndrome interact with two types of spaces: their personal dwellings and some completely unknown spaces.
The methodology then unfolds towards more pro-active inclusion of the participants thanks to playful expression of their feelings and perceptions. This paper discusses how this methodology relates to inclusive and universal design principles as well as prevalent models of disability in architecture.
Editor’s note: More recent research on neurodiversity, autism and dementia have similar findings.
While the political focus is on the NDIS, we are forgetting the National Disability Strategy. This strategy is for all people with disability, not just the few who will be eligible for the NDIS. Consequently, Emily Steel asks, Is the NDIS promoting inclusion?
Her main point is that the processes and outcomes of the NDIS can end up working against inclusion and perpetuating segregation. The NDIS aims to promote inclusion, but its very nature is singling out people with ‘special needs’.
The NDIS is Australia’s response to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But on its own, the NDIS won’t realise disability rights. The model is built on the idea that people with disability are a ‘special’ problem. The National Disability Strategy on the other hand, is about mainstreaming and inclusion. The NDIS is about the individual and the National Disability Strategy is about structural change.
Where Is the National Disability Strategy?
In her article, Emily Steel discusses how the intent of the National Disability Strategy is left forgotten in the wake of the NDIS. To achieve inclusion we need a broad universal design approach to mainstream society. We need both the NDIS and the National Disability Strategy. In addition, we need to consider disability as an aspect of diversity. If not, we are still segregating and marginalising.
Editor’s note: The NDIS supports a relatively small number of people with disability. So what can others expect if they do not qualify for NDIS support? Will the public and private sectors believe they no longer need to take responsibility for inclusion? All the more reason to support the push for universally designed environments, services, products and programs.
The graphic, found on Pinterest, neatly shows the concepts of exclusion, separation, integration and inclusion.
A useable kitchen is a must and it is often the details of the design that make the difference. Once the overall working space has been thought through, the fittings become the focus.
Lifemark in New Zealand has partnered with Blum kitchen products and fittings that help make any kitchen more functional regardless of level of capability to open, grasp, or carry things. Drawers instead of cupboards are now standard in kitchen design, but storing items logically and tidily is another matter.
This item from a Todd Brickhouse Associates newsletter includes some good kitchen design ideas. Scrolling down the page, you can see a picture of a pull-out table that nests neatly under the kitchen bench and over the storage drawers when not in use. Colour contrast is mentioned as an important feature. Another idea is a dual height island bench which has multi functional use. The newsletter includes other items that are probably more specific to north America and also some disability specific items.
From the Editor: One of our members raised an interesting point with me this week about Changing Places toilets and whether they meet the principles of universal design. This is one of those situations where it isn’t easy to distinguish where universal design ends and specialised design begins.
The European perspective is that inclusion is a continuum – a chain of inclusive thinking. At one end of the continuum are universally designed products, services and environments that almost anyone can use. At the other end are specialised assistive technologies and devices such as prosthetic limbs and speech synthesisers. Somewhere in the middle the two intersect. Some people need both specialised and universally designed products and environments.
The Changing Places website says their toilets are designed to “meet the needs of people with severe and profound disabilities”. It also says, “It is required that accredited Changing Places facilities be built in addition to and separate from required Unisex Accessible Toilets (see picture of signage). This is to ensure that the needs of both groups of toilet users are met without compromise”.
This clearly puts Changing Places (CP) toilets at the assistive technology end of the continuum as as a specialised design for particular users. The toilet is therefore not universally designed because not everyone can use it due to the way it is designed. But CP toilets support universal design because in conjunction with other toilet types in the vicinity they provide equitable access for everyone to the surrounding environment. Consequently, everyone gets the benefits – everyone is included.
However, where funds are limited, it would be easy to assume the CP toilet would work for all wheelchair users. Problems would arise with the drop-down grab bars, particularly for people with MS, Parkinson’s and others with balance problems. The accreditation for these facilities should be through the Changing Places organisation without reference to the public accessible toilet standard (AS1428.1). The term “Lift and Change” toilets is being used in New South Wales to avoid the copyright issues. However, it leaves it open to misinterpretation of what the toilet is supposed to achieve and who it is for.
When researching the topic of disability, how can researchers know if their methods are the right ones? Do all the standard academically accepted methods used in research projects suit this topic? Are they inclusive research methods?
Free to access guides 
The Center for Health Design has published an article based on designing for human needs. It advocates for age-friendly workplaces, person-centred healthcare, ageing in place and active living. 
A well designed kitchen is essential for all members of the household. Participating in food preparation is important part of everyday life in many cultures. So anyone who wants to join in with meal preparation should be able to do so. 
More than any room in the house, the kitchen needs to be a place where tasks can be done easily and efficiently. Kitchens are also an important area for social interactions during meal preparation and clean up. As people age, more thought needs to go into kitchen design to overcome issues such as reaching, bending, grasping and holding. However, this should not mean a complete kitchen renovation if these issues are considered in the original kitchen design.
Politicians and planners make frequent calls for older Australians to give up their three bedroom homes to make way for “working families”. The expect them to move into apartments. But is urban density the answer? Regardless of the ageist inference that older people are “hogging all the houses”, with the political focus on working families, little room is left to discuss the housing needs of older cohorts. 
This is a major work by Bruce Judd, Diana Olsberg, Joanne Quinn and Oya Demirbilek (2010). It challenges the often held assumption that older people are “taking up space” in big houses that they no longer need – assumptions that their homes are “underoccupied”. 
Three bedrooms and urban living are what most older people want. These are two of the key findings in a new Australian report from AHURI. Age specific housing is not a preference. So researchers suggest more innovation to attract the older cohort so they can age in place after all. 
People with Down syndrome sometimes experience space in public and home environments in a different way to others. A study in Belgium of people with Down syndrome and building design revealed some interesting results.
