In the age of climate change Australians are reassessing the risk of floods, fires and severe storms on their homes. But what about assessing the risk of capabilities in later age in home design? Perhaps they should be assessing both. Any proposed renovations should consider both climate and later age to ensure a safe and secure home into the future.
Geoff Penrose makes the point very well in the April 2025 edition of the Lifemark Universal Design Newsletter. Lifemark promotes universal design principles for homes with a focus on health and wellbeing for all occupants. Their design standards provide the necessary information for that 100% probability factor – later age.
“Universal design helps everyone feel at home.”
“A Lifemark® rated home is easy to live in for anyone at any stage and can be life-changing for people living with an impairment, age-related illness or injury.”
The Lifemark standards reflect those in the Australian National Construction Code’s Livable Housing Design Standard. That’s because they are underpinned by a universal design approach. Unfortunately, while the National Construction Code is supposed to be national, not all states have adopted it. That means, many new homes will still have steps to the entry and be unsuited to an ageing population.
In a LinkedIn post, David Chandler wrote about the reaction of powerful voices to the NSW Building Reforms. He said that the development industry “predictably recoils” whenever a new regulation that raises building standards is presented. This is one of the reasons the housing industry has fought the Livable Housing Standard. It would require the building certifier to pay closer attention to the design and construction.
Get it right first time
Chandler goes on to say that rather than costing more, it pays to get it right first time and to resist cutting corners. This is exactly what universal design advocates have been saying for years. Get it right first time – it’s cost effective. Chandler, the former NSW Building Commissioner, addresses this topic in a Radio National broadcast.
People with low vision cannot correct their eyesight with glasses, contact lenses, medication or surgery. While low vison can begin at any age, the likelihood increases once people reach 65 years. The Australian Institute of Architects has a web resource about designing for low vision.
The resource explains the different types of low vision caused by various conditions such as cataracts, macular degeneration, and glaucoma. Other conditions can be caused by a stroke or diabetes. Total blindness with absolutely no detection of light is rare. Pictures highlight the differences between the conditions.
Images by Francesca Davenport with graphics by Ria Davenport from the Australian Institute of Architects.
Design compliance for low vision
Sometimes photographs show visual complexities in the environment more clearly. The image below shows how the shadow of tree branches affects the visual design of the footpath.
The Australian Disability Discrimination Act mirrors part of the National Construction Code and Australian Standards requirements. But these regulations are not a guarantee against a discrimination claim.
The resource lists all the Australian Standards that apply to designs, including luminance contrast.
Luminance contrast
Luminance contrast means the comparison between light reflected from one surface with the adjoining surface. Text is a good example. Light grey text against a white background will likely be invisible to someone with low vision. However, measuring luminance contrast is complex. This is due to different light conditions between day and night and even sunny or rainy days outside. The type of materials used is another factor plus wear and tear.
Glass doors that are not automatic or large glazed windows are often a concern because they are not easily detected – even by people with good vision. Full length windows can also be mistaken for a doorway or opening. This is why contrasting strips across doors and windows are essential for everyone – a universal feature. The building code and standards provide guidance.
Images from the article by Penny Galbraith
Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSI)
This is one area that people with low vision complain about all the time. Mostly because of the inconsistent and non-compliant application across the built environment. TGSIs warn people with low vision they are approaching a hazard.
TGSIs also require luminance contrast with the adjacent feature such as the footpath or stairway.
The article also discusses lighting, handrails, stair risers, shorelining and layout, as well as signage and Braille.
Best practice design solutions
Best practice does not have to mean more cost if it is considered at the outset of the design. However, these features are too often left until last when the overall design cannot be changed. The resource covers layout, finishes, fixtures and fittings and provided additional advise on elements such as luminance contrast, lighting and glare.
Visual clarity and confusion
The effect of highly patterned surfaces are difficult for people with low vision, and for people with sensory processing difficulties.
Confusion occurs when surfaces with a high luminance contrast are interpreted as barriers or a step. Some patterns can look like holes in the floor, and shiny surface can look wet or slippery. This image looks like you are stepping on cubes.
Continuous footways and bus stop bypasses are of particular concern to people with reduced mobility and vision. Living Streets and Transport for All in the UK ran a two year project on the issues. The research uncovered the issues and found ways to improve the impact of these features on streetscape accessibility. Streets for people with disability means safer and better streets for all pedestrians.
The first stage of the project involved interviewing representatives from organisations representing disability and cycling.
Image from NSW Government Movement and Place website. It shows a continuous footpath.
Bus stop bypasses (or floating bus stops) involve a cycle track being placed between a footpath and an island with a bus stop. Bus passengers must cross the cycle track to access the bus stop. Continuous footways are described as an uninterrupted footway that extends across a side road. Usually the footway is raised to the same level as the footpath.
Continuous footways may be unsafe for people who are blind or partially sighted due to the lack of tactile paving. They may also be at risk when crossing cycle tracks to reach a bus stop as they don’t always hear cyclists coming. The noise of busy roads also makes the sound difficult to detect.
People with mobility issues need more time to cross the cycle track. This can put them at risk if cyclists do not allow them to pass. Also, wheelchair users have to navigate narrow islands to get on and off a bus.
Not safe? Find another route
People who are blind or have low vision usually get the expertise of a mobility trainer to help them navigate their local environment. Mobility trainers find different ways to ensure their clients are as safe as possible. Interestingly, all mobility trainers in the study teach their clients to indent into side roads because it gives them more time and a quieter space to hear what is coming.
Mobility trainers considered cycle tracks at bus stop bypasses generally risky and potentially they would teach a different route with a controlled crossing.
Potential solutions?
The study involved site visits with observations by people with disability. The key issues were raised in the discussions following the site visits. For the bus stops, descriptive markings for pedestrians to look both ways on two-way cycle paths would make them safer. Bus stop islands need more circulation space for wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
General lighting at bus stop bypasses should be improved, and that lighting should be used to indicate the presence of zebra crossings. Further solutions included adding rumble strips on cycle lanes, introducing speed bumps to slow down cyclists, and signage to indicate the presence of a cycle path.
For continuous footways, there should be steep ramps at continuous footways to ensure that cars slow down for pedestrians. It was also mentioned that there should be tactile paving at continuous footways to inform blind and partially sighted people of the potential presence of cars.
High contrast paving to alert people who have low vision was another suggestion. Also, implementing road markings to alert drivers to slow down, and improving the condition of pavements.
Would the solutions work?
While some solutions were feasible, they might not have the desired effect, or might have an adverse effect. For example, high contrast between the footpath and the continuous footway is feasible, but might lead to people driving over it as though they have priority. Other solutions will depend on maintenance, such as painted ground markings which have a maintenance cost. Indeed, this is a complex space to work in, and each design is context specific.
The main Living Streets webpageon inclusive design provides an overview of the whole project which was divided into two parts: bus stops and footways.
Is it harder for older people to create and track passwords than younger people? Maybe not. But there could be a difference in the way the two groups deal with the issues. A research study comparing a group of older people with a group of younger people provided surprising results. Older people had no problem creating and remembering passwords because they devised their own memory strategies.
The most reported concerns were the same for both age groups. They were remembering passwords, the security of passwords and systems, making strong passwords, and requirements being too complex. Older people were more concerned about being locked out of their accounts due to forgetting the password.
Some of the simple strategies for password creation by younger people resulted in less secure passwords. But older people had more difficulty in creating strong passwords.
Length and strength
The first surprising result was that on password length, older participants reported having little difficulty with this aspect of password creation, while young participants had considerable difficulty. However, on a follow-up opened ended question, many more older people elaborated on their difficulties, which included the use of special symbols and difficult making strong passwords.
On the other hand, young participants most often expressed difficulty in re-using previous passwords. These findings are generally in line with results from others that older people were using familiar words and phrases for passwords. Perhaps this avoided the complexity of combinations of characters, numbers and symbols.
Many online services require a secure account, usually password protected. Creating and tracking these accounts and passwords is difficult for everyone. This is a vitally important issue as online accounts now give access to many healthcare, financial and support services.
This study used an online questionnaire to investigate the behaviours, problems, and strategies for creating and using password-protected online accounts with a sample of 75 older UK participants (aged 65 to 89). They were compared with a similar sample of young UK participants (aged 18 to 30).
The results were surprising with unexpected differences between the groups, but many similarities. For example, older participants had no difficulties creating passwords of the right length, whereas young participants had difficulties in that task.
Older participants had many more complex strategies for creating and remembering passwords. Young participants relied more on re-using old passwords with small changes which then probably caused difficulties remembering them. These results suggest we need to rethink the approach to better supporting older people in password creation and use, taking a more universal design approach, supporting all users with a range of options.
Most research on all types of transportation focuses on urban areas. Rural communities often receive less attention but their needs are the same. However, urban solutions are not always the answer. For people with disability, especially those who don’t drive, the issues are magnified. A study in Nova Scotia used the Photovoice method to look at active transport in a rural community.
Photovoice is a method of gathering data using pictures and words. It facilitates reflection and community-based discussion. It enables people with disability to explain their diverse needs to policy makers. Image of Queen Street, Bridgetown, courtesy PNI Atlantic News
Twelve people with different disabilities were recruited in a rural community in Nova Scotia. A camera was given to each participant to photograph whatever they chose. Participants also provided statements to go with each photograph as a way to share their experiences and perspectives.
The article explains the method of recruitment and the way participants were supported through the process. The authors include some of the informative photos with captions provided by participants. They are grouped by theme: Accessibility of the built environment, Feelings of safety, Wayfinding, Community spaces, and Beautification. Of course these themes are not mutually exclusive.
Footpaths are an issue for all
As with many previous studies, uneven and cracked footpaths rated highly as a barrier to accessibility for people with physical and intellectual disabilities. Poorly maintained footpaths also compromised feelings of safety. Sandwich boards on footpaths were unpopular too. Also, one bad experience impacts one’s feelings and can restrict future activities.
Individuals with disabilities residing in rural regions face greater barriers to accessibility causing reduced access to essential services, transportation, and spaces. This study employed a qualitative, guided photovoice approach with 12 people to understand the perceived barriers and facilitators to active transport.
Five themes emerged through 144 photographs and related comments. They were: 1. Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment 2. Feelings of Safety, 3. Wayfinding, 4. Inclusive Community Spaces, and 5. Beautification. The findings reinforced the need to include the voice of people with disability in designs.
The example of Frank Lloyd Wright designing a home with and for a wheelchair user is sometimes used as an example of accessible design. But Nicole Karidis writes about the Laurent House built in 1952 as an example of the power of co-design. She describes how Wright worked with Kenneth Laurent on every feature of the home. But can this process be applied to buildings that have many users?
“Every morning for 60 years, I would come out of my bedroom and pause in the doorway, … I’d take in the beauty that Wright designed, seeing both the indoors and outdoors … That scene allowed me to forget about my disabilities and focus on my capabilities.” Kenneth Laurent
The more important question is “what will happen if we don’t use co-design processes?” Karidis uses an example where building users were left out of the design process. The Hunters Point Library, Queens, New York is an infamous case that continues to cost millions of dollars to rectify.
As Karidis says, co-design ensures diverse perspectives are considered, particularly those with lived experiences. This leads to more inclusive, user-centred designs that better meet the actual needs and preferences of all users. It also reduces the risk of costly redesigns.
The real power of co-design is in continuity
However, co-design processes are sometimes recognised during the design phase, only to be erased or diminished in later stages. Or users are consulted when the final product or structure is released. Feedback is not consistently incorporated into the final design decisions, leading to a building or product that does not work for everyone.
The title of the article is, Building Together: The Hidden Power of Co-Design. Frank Lloyd Wright’s work was also discussed in a conference paper in terms of measuring quality rather than quantity.
Architecture, aesthetics and universal design
Frank Lloyd Wright considered aesthetics in architecture
The principles and goals of universal design have no criteria for aesthetics. It’s focus is on functional requirements rather than sensory experiences. It doesn’t help when architects and planners continue to associate universal design with regulations and standards and leave aesthetics out. But the key to designing environments for everyone is to draw together architecture, aesthetics and universal design.
Carolyn Ahmer’s paper discusses universal design in the context of renowned architects. She explains how their designs include inclusive elements together with aesthetics. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright’s work which includes the famous Guggenheim Museum. The article covers visual and non-visual information and movement through space.
The aim of the paper is to highlight the qualities of design essential to creating buildings that stimulate our senses. One source of inspiration is in our architectural history.
She concludes that inclusive architecture should be based on qualitative and quantitative measures. Quantitative assessments are based on controllable data and standardised specifications. Qualitative assessments focus on sensory experiences of an architectural project. These are features that cannot be measured but should not be discounted.
There is a statistical link between disability and loneliness according to the UK Office for National Statistics. The more pronounced the disability, the greater the likelihood of loneliness. So what do streetscapes have to do with this? Every journey, for any reason begins with leaving the house and directly interacting with the street. A study of lived experience found that people with disability:
> felt invisible and unheard because of inaccessible streetscapes
> found inconsistent electric vehicle noise complicates navigation, and
> engagement is vital in addressing accessibility and enhancing communication.
The study documents how researchers gathered information from participants with disability and lists the questions asked.
“Planners responsible for streetscapes, as well as the public, need stronger education on disabled people’s needs and barriers.”
Inclusive streetscapes – the challenges
The study revealed challenges with societal design, pavements, societal behaviour, street furniture, wayfinding, and roadworks. Each of these themes are explained in more detail. For societal design, poor consideration of needs and design inconsistency topped the list.
In terms of footpaths, the surfaces, insufficient kerb ramps and footpath camber rated highest. Parking on the footpath was the greatest behaviour gripe followed by aggressive behaviour by others.
Rubbish bins and outdoor dining and chairs were the worst street furniture offenders, and accessible routes are often longer than they need to be. Difficulty navigating temporary paths during roadworks is a key element for improvement.
Providing accessible parking spaces without providing a kerb ramp is considered poor and thoughtless design. Street repairs can make the situation worse.
It’s about the footpath
Participants regularly mentioned poor pavement surfaces, lack of maintenance, the angle of the camber. Shared spaces are particularly challenging. They make it difficult for them to recognise priorities on the road. This is a source of anxiety which is at odds with claims that shared spaces are safer.
There is much more to unpack in this paper about all the other elements including street furniture and wayfinding and navigation. Another key element is the extra energy required when already working from a low energy base because of their disability.
Urban streetscape design has to do more to enable the independent movement of disabled people. Few studies have attempted to capture the lived experience of a disabled person using the streetscape.
We interviewed 26 people with lived experience of a disability (from around the UK) to define the streetscape barriers faced. The systemic reasons as to why these issues exist are identified and we propose a new path forward.
We provide recommendations for streetscape design with direct relevance for local authorities, policy makers and designers for more accessible streetscapes. Embedding people with disability into the decision making is essential. Future work must assess the barriers in collaboration with disabled people, to prioritise actions and aim for an equitable streetscape for all.
Staying put and walking more
An Australian study found that older people who live in separate houses walk more than those in retirement villages. The Curtin University study accounted for several factors before coming to this conclusion. It adds to the literature that for most people, staying in your own home is the best way to age. Of course, we need homes and neighbourhoods designed to support this. While the study has some limitations, it is another angle on staying put versus age segregated living arrangements.
Understanding inlcusion – how can we make it happen?
Architect Mary Ann Jackson has written a thoughtful article about built environment practitioners and their continued lack of understanding of our human diversity. She says that little is known about the extent of inaccessibility. Legislation is all very well, but it doesn’t reflect the real lives of people.
Jackson’s article explores the question of how might an understanding of models of disability and human rights inform the improvement of access at a neighbourhood scale? She argues that built environment practitioners must engage with users, with people with disability to inform their understanding of what makes (unintended) barriers to access and inclusion. There are links to related articles on the page.
The title of the paper is, Models of Disability and Human Rights: Informing the Improvement of Built Environment Accessibility for People with Disability at Neighborhood Scale? It’s an open access article. You can download the full text.
Sensory processing directly influences the productivity, social interaction and wellbeing of neurodivergent workers. Some neurodivergent individuals experience sensory overload to sound and light for example. On the other hand others need heightened sensations such as constant movement or touching. When it comes to workplaces, architectural design should incorporate neuroergonomics.
Consider a diversity of options that allow users to find spaces appropriate to their needs for the task. Zones with different levels of stimulation promote an inclusive culture and environment.
A study by two researchers in Brazil looked at the literature on neurodivergence and how the brain works, and applied this to workplace design. The different neurodiverse conditions are listed in a chart with suggested solutions and adaptations. Inclusive and biophilic design is good for the productivity levels of all workers. Consequently, designing for the neurodivergent community increases the level of comfort for everyone. The image below is from the article.
Spatial references
Intuitive and directional wayfinding gives neurodivergent people the instant cues they need to find their way even in familiar environments. It creates a comforting sense of order and reduces confusion. Having many identical spaces can also cause confusion if the wayfinding isn’t clear. Landmarks, use of colour and of course signage are key.
Work environments that promote flexible and adaptable layouts not only meet productive demands, but also favour greater interaction. There is increased comfort, and inclusion of employees and reduces the stress generated by a rigid organization.
Biophilic design
Natural elements that represent the qualities of nature are good for everyone. Biophilic design involves building nature-like environments that provide refuge and relaxation. This allows individuals to establish their sensory and social control over their surroundings. A common approach is to provide green areas with access from common areas. Sensory gardens can also provide a calming effect.
Thermal comfort
The temperature of many working environments is cause for conflict because not everyone experiences heat and cold in the same way. Thermal design strategies including the ability to open windows and naturally ventilated atriums and outdoor courtyards. Ability to control the temperature at individual worksites is the optimum of course but not always possible.
Noise and lighting
Noise and interruptions can compromise employees’ focus and productivity. On the other hand total quiet can be just as bad because any small noise is deafening to some. That is one reason for employees to don headphones. One solution is to create natural calming sounds.
Appropriate lighting for each workspace is essential and natural light is best and most productive. Where this is not possible, adjusting the colour temperature of the light across the day is shown to be effective. Florescent lights that buzz and flicker are particularly distracting for neurodivergent individuals.
Approximately 17% of the world’s population is considered neurodivergent. This means they have patterns of cognitive, emotional and social development that diverge significantly from what is generally expected. Consequently, workspace design must consider new demands that meet the needs of this group, as well as all employees.
More than 20 million Brazilians have been diagnosed with burnout, anxiety and depressive disorders. This study investigated the contributions of neuroergonomics to mental health and the inclusion of neurodiversity in the workplace. Evidence-based design ideas linked to inclusive architecture were considered
We considered spatial references (wayfinding), spatial organization (layout), biophilic design, thermal comfort, acoustics, integrative lighting and degree of sensory stimulation. This study contributes to the planning of healthy, comfortable, safe and inclusive environments.
Empathy driven design is a catalyst for social change. It challenges architects to consider the broader impact of their designs on social equity to make spaces more inclusive. By integrating empathy into the design process, architects can create more equitable, caring environments that serve the common good. Despite the challenges, empathy driven design is a paradigm shift in architecture, moving away from top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions.
Empathy driven design is based on collaboration. That is, engaging with communities to understand their unique experiences and challenges. The architect becomes a listener and participant in the co-design process. Image courtesy of MASS Design Group from ArchDaily.
An article in ArchDaily explains more about designing with empathy and for social equity. Examples of empathy driven design include, among others, a hospital in Rwanda and a housing project in Chile. Projects in developed countries require the same thought as these examples and show what’s possible.
Challenges and opportunities
One of the most significant hurdles is balancing empathy with practical constraints such as budget, time, and regulatory limitations. Many projects that aim to serve disadvantaged communities are often restricted by tight budgets.
The key issue is the cost of time and project deadlines. Navigating this tension requires creative solutions that make the most of available resources without compromising the project’s empathetic core.
Design alone cannot overcome deeply entrenched societal inequalities. The success of designs depend on both the built environment and broader support systems, such as social services or public policy changes.
Loughborough University has a good track record for inclusive design research. Low vision and manual dexterity are the most common losses for people as they age. Consequently, the study focused on these factors to improve architects’ empathy and understanding of users.
The method involved usingglasses and gloves that simulate loss of vision and loss of hand dexterity. Participants wore the glasses and gloves and then given reading, writing and dexterity tasks.
The results show that the tasks challenged their traditional view of disability. Participants began to see it more as a continuum and effecting a wider population.
Key themes
Inadequacy of the current building standard.
There is no incentive for developers to go beyond minimum compliance.
Developers often commission design briefs so the end user is often unknown.
In the absence of knowing their end user, they tend to design for themselves.
They feel there is a stigma associated with accessible designs and this reinforces the disability-centric concept of able bodied versus disability designs.
It challenged their traditional view between ‘able-bodied’ and ‘disabled-users’.
A lack of inclusive design training within their undergraduate and post graduate training.
The video below shows the gloves and glasses in action.
Designing for empathy
Human centred design and inclusive design processes focus taking an empathetic approach to the users. But what if you turn that around and think about designing for empathy itself? To shift from being the empathiser to become an empathy generator? That was the question a team of designers in Finland wanted to know the answer to. Using socio-cultural design tools rather than physical empathy design tools, they created a co-creative process with the Finnish parliament.
Globalisation and the mixing of people, cultures, religions and languages fuels pressing healthcare, educational, political and other socio-cultural issues. Many issues are driven by society’s struggle to find ways to facilitate more meaningful ways to help overcome the empathy gap which keeps various groups of people apart.
This paper presents a process to design for empathy – as an outcome of design. This extends prior work which typically looks at empathy for design – as a part of the design process, as is common in inclusive design and human centered design process.
We challenge the role of the designer to be more externalised, to shift from an empathiser to become an empathy generator. We develop and demonstrate the process to design for empathy through a co-creation case study aiming to bring empathy into politics.
The Parliament of Finland is the setting for the project. It involves co-creation with six Members of the Parliament from five political parties. We discuss the outcomes of the process including design considerations for future research.
The rules of research ethics are to make sure people who are the subject of the research are protected from harm during the research process. This can mean leaving them out of the research project because the ethics approval process is so onerous. So who decides which groups are ‘vulnerable’ group and those that are not?
Vulnerable groups involve people considered susceptible to coercion or undue influence in a research setting. They may be people who are incapable of understanding what it means to participate in research. Or they might not understand what constitutes informed consent.
Individuals considered vulnerable might have a diminished capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and/or recover from the impact of a natural or constructed hazard. Vulnerable groups may also consist of individuals who are unable to care for themselves and/or may have an increased chance of suicide, self-harm, or the likelihood of harming others.
In some cases, involving the people from the nominated vulnerable group to be part of the research team and the processes is another way to conduct the research. See the section on Co-design Processes for more.
From the abstract: Obtaining informed consent is the foundation of ethics in clinical research involving human participants. The “Common Rule” identifies “vulnerable subjects” as “children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educational disadvantaged persons.”
This article explores a pragmatic approach for Institutional Review Boards to review research protocols involving individuals with disabilities and/or those who are educationally-disadvantaged as study participants. As a direct result, we formed a process for obtaining informed consent of vulnerable participants in social and education sciences research.
Navigating ethical challenges
Mary Quirk brings an “Inclusion as Process” approach to ethical issues in her doctoral study involving people with disability. Her article is based on a case study where she relates her experience in the first person.
In her doctoral research, Quirk adopted Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning approaches as a way to engage in inclusive research. The aim was to facilitate the voices of people with disabilities in education during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The case study explains “Inclusion as Process” as an approach to research. It discusses ethical implications of relevance to educational and other researchers. In particular, it examines the application of Universal Design (UD) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) thinking in research and how these approaches relate to these individual yet interdependent themes. Finally, the case study outlines an “Inclusion as Process” framework to guide inclusive research.
