Author: Jane Bringolf

Maintaining dignity on buses and trains

“Mind the Gap” on public transport has an additional meaning for people with disability and other marginalised groups. It’s not just the barriers and inconveniences, it’s also the indignity that people experience. Gaps result from barriers in infrastructure, communication systems and attitudes. Consequently, not everyone is able to maintain their dignity on buses and trains.

More than 30% of people with disability in Australia experience difficulties using public transport. Consequently, this impacts on their ability to participate in the economy and society.

A boy in a powered wheelchair is mounting the ramp into the Queensland Rail train. A woman stands behind him and the station guard looks on. A man with a baby stroller and boy wait nearby to enter the train carriage. The image is from the Access and Inclusion webpage.

Image from Queensland Transport’s Access and Inclusion Strategy.

Perceptions of dignity are about not feeling discrimination, shame or humiliation. Positive experiences of acceptance and inclusion help maintain dignity even when things might not work well. A research study in Queensland explored these issues with people with disability.

The researchers found that dignified mobility experiences were not isolated or momentary. Rather, entire travel journeys that were accessible, inclusive, equitable, promoted independence and enhanced self-worth contributed to dignified mobility experiences. And it wasn’t all about infrastructure.

Interpersonal interactions experienced in physical, digital and communication spaces across travel journeys were just as important as physical barriers. A sense of dignity came from feeling respected, appropriately helped and being treated like anyone else. Both tangible and intangible aspects of the whole journey need consideration. The researchers point to a universal design approach.

Universal design, access to accessible and inclusive information, and empathic attitudes help create dignified mobility experiences for people with disability when using buses and trains.

Picture of the Esplanade Busport showing the stop sequence of the trains from the adjoining train station

The research paper provides key information for a universal design approach to dignified journeys. They include detail on accessible and inclusive information and the need for empathic systems and staff.

The title of the article is, The dignity experience of people with disability when using trains and buses in an Australian city.

From the abstract

When transport systems are accessible and inclusive, people with disability experience dignity. When personal mobility is constrained by physical, social and/or communication, barriers, people with disability experience exclusion and risk to their dignity.

This study explored the role of trains and buses in an Australian city in supporting access, inclusion and dignified mobility experiences for people with disability. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants with diverse visible and invisible disabilities.

The findings highlight the complexities involved with navigating public transport systems while maintaining dignity. Accessible and inclusive information, infrastructure, and interactions with staff ensured dignified mobility experiences.

Dignified mobility experiences represent a complex and dynamic interaction between personal experiences and preferences, impairment-specific requirements, transport infrastructure, interpersonal experiences, and information inclusivity.

Inclusive building design: a guide

Talking about inclusive built environments is easy, but how do you do it well? With different stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of a project, how do you get them to join up their thinking to approach projects with the same inclusive mindset? An inclusive building design guide focused on the processes is the way to do it.

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) created an Inclusion Charter in 2020. One of their commitments was to embed inclusive design in all projects. But architects cannot work in isolation – all stakeholders need to take on an inclusive mindset. As an extension to their Charter, they created the Inclusive Design Overlay to the RIBA Plan of Work. It seeks to bring all stakeholders on board for every part of the project.

“The role our built environment has on each and every person’s life cannot be overestimated. This Inclusive Design Overlay provides a consensus across built environment professions for how we accelerate inclusion and value diversity.” Robbie Turner, Director of Inclusion and Diversity, RIBA.

Front cover of the RIBA Inclusive Design Overlay showing a montage of nine different groups of people.

Twenty-five different built environment professions provided insights and best practice content for the overlay. The inclusive design tasks apply to the client, project management team, design team, construction team and asset management team.

There are three core parts: the Client Team, the Design Team and the Construction Team. In addition, they recommend having an inclusive design consultant, or champion, with specialist inclusive design expertise. As Australian access consultants know, the earlier they are consulted the better. So it is good to see RIBA encouraging involvement from the outset of the project. The overlay also encourages the project team to look beyond building regulations.

Good design must be fundamentally inclusive just as it should be sustainable and resilient. Inclusive design should be elevated to the same level as sustainability.

A man in a white hard hat and hi-vis vest is on a large monitor in an office. Four people are watching him. RIBA inclusive design overlay.

The overlay details the roles of each team and stages of work. It begins with setting the project brief and budget through concept design, construction and handover to asset managers. There are separate sections for each of the key teams and what they should do and understand at each stage.

Enablers

The document includes a section on inclusive design enablers. These are actions that support the development of an inclusive design strategy, and implementation of inclusive design across the delivery of a project. Each sub-section has clear information on the diversity of the population and different levels of capability, and how to approach them in design and construction processes.

Access the document by visiting the landing page on the RIBA website, which will give you an overview as well.

Editor’s note: In the UK they use the term “inclusive design” where other countries use “universal design”. The goals and actions are the same.

Inclusive suburbs for mind and body

There are several good guides on planning and designing cities and suburbs. But how many are unwittingly based on ableist and ageist polices and plans? If they are based on a narrow body type of “young, adult, fit white male” then they are likely ableist. This narrow view makes other bodies and minds invisible and therefore excluded. Lisa Stafford challenges the planning community to be change-makers in creating inclusive suburbs for mind and body.

“Realising this vision will require a drastic shift in the way we think, in our planning and design systems, and in our ways of working.”

Aerial view of an expanse of a housing estate. Inclusive suburbs for mind and body.

Stafford’s article in Cities People Love, explains how ableism plays out in policies and planning systems. When change doesn’t come from those in power, the advocacy has to come from citizen action. Citizen advocacy for disability inclusion has been running for 30 years, and the fight continues. If planners take a universal design mindset, so much more could change for a significant proportion of the population.

5 Elements of inclusive planning

Here is a brief overview of Stafford’s key elements for inclusive planning.

Human diversity is valued and embedded in all aspects of planning. To be inclusive, planning must that humans are diverse in both mind and body across the lifespan.

All people centred public planning processes and decision (urban governance). Collaborative processes encompass a diversity of minds, bodies, ages and languages for all people to be actively involved.

Inclusively designed spaces and infrastructure are assets of a community with equity at the core. This means moving beyond compliance with minimum standards to a performance-based planning approach informed by universal design.

Planning for connectedness between nature, people and place. Infrastructure such as footpaths, seating, public spaces, community green spaces, and treed streets, supports encounters and gatherings that help build and strengthen a sense of place and belonging.

Vibrant places and experiences. Vibrant places give a sense of fun, friendliness, creativity, and participation. A diverse cross-section of people are attracted to vibrant and accessible places where they feel comfortable to stay longer.

The lived knowledge and experience of affected citizens should guide design processes. Everyone learns from co-design processes.

People on a fun run with two older adults being pushed in wheelchairs.

Stafford invites planners to reflect on the five elements and become leaders and change-makers. “Planning for equity and inclusion in our suburbs is the only way we can create fairness of access, and uphold everyone’s rights to live in the suburbs and participate fully in everyday life.”

The title is, Making suburbs inclusive for all our bodies and minds, on the Cities People Love website.

Universal design & neurodiversity in the workplace

Business and academic research on inclusive workplace cultures typically focus on race and/or gender. Disability and neurodiversity are often overlooked or excluded from this research and resulting policies and practices. A universal design approach is the way to take a holistic look at the issues and solutions for neurodiversity in the workplace. Indeed, these are good workplace practices for everyone. That’s what universal design is about.

Workplace employee groups can help marginalised groups feel heard, but they can also place an additional burden on individuals to seek workplace improvements.

five young people in the picture, two men, three women. Three are sitting on couches, and two stand behind. They look like they are having a discussion. Four are white, there is one black woman. neurodiversity in the workplace.

A short paper by Preziosa and Hill uses the 7 principles of universal design as a framework for implementing inclusive practices. The authors present the 7 principles in a matrix, and used four principles, briefly outlined below, as an example:

Equitable Use: Avoid the need for people with disability to have separate service or experiences. Eliminate label-based inclusion, such as targeted hiring programs for autistic people. This segregates employees into specific fields and requires them to self-identify any “special” condition they have.

Flexibility in Use: Build in preferences outside the norm such as playback speed options for training videos. Offer to be flexible and acknowledge that individual differences are expected and welcome.

Simple and Intuitive to Use: Avoid unnecessary complexity and repetition of processes, tools, and webpages.

Tolerance for Error: Allow room for mistakes and edits. Ensure digital form, tools and software allow for review and correction.

The authors claim that neurodiverse employees who receive support services show higher retention rates, and most required less than 4 support hours a month. In addition, many benefitted from support with problem solving and organising their work.

Universal design and employment scenarios

The authors matrix consists of 7 universal design principles and 6 workplace elements. They are: Designing, Hiring, Contracting, Training, Performance Review and Wellbeing. The information is also good for managing groups and teams outside the workplace environment.

The title of the short paper is, What can organizations do to create an environment which successfully supports, engages and retains their neurodiverse employees?

Neurodiversity in the workplace

Foosball or Football Table with red and white teams. Games such as these are cater for workplace neurodiversity.

People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, anxiety or depression can feel stressed and uncomfortable. Consequently they are less productive. Employers could be missing out by not considering neurodiversity in the workplace. 

As many as one in eight people are neurodiverse according to an article in The Fifth Estate. COVID led to sterile environments. Offices removed their fabric coverings and other soft elements to make cleaning easier. But it makes spaces noisy, clinical and uninviting. 

Even working from home isn’t the answer for everyone. Just because you can work from home doesn’t mean you should. Long hours in a hard chair at the kitchen table isn’t optimum.

The article discusses colour, signage, the size and shape of spaces, textiles and plants. Even games such as Foosball tables have a place.

The solutions are in design of the office, the office culture and inclusive policies. When it comes to neurodiversity we have to ask, what is neurotypical anyway? Workplace designs that consider diversity are good for everyone.

There is more in this article titled, Considering neurodiversity to create better, more productive workplaces. The Fifth Estate also has an ebook for purchase, My (new) Happy Healthy Workplace

Related articles

7 things an autistic person needs in the workplace are:

  • No two people are alike
  • Ditch the stereotypes
  • Ask how we would like to be referred to
  • Be open to having a conversation to discuss what works
  • Be flexible to customise our working environment
  • Help us maximise our strengths
  • Provide us with opportunities to progress

Research on designing technology for neurodiverse users reminds us that this ends up being good design for everyone.

The Autism Research Starter Pack has strategies for including people with autism.

And a book

The Canary Code: A Guide to Neurodiversity, Dignity, and Intersectional Belonging at Work.

“This groundbreaking book combines the lived experience with academic rigor, innovative thought leadership, and lively, accessible writing. To support different types of readers, academic, applied, and lived experience content is clearly identified, helping readers choose their own adventure.”

Safe children means safe adults

Many parents would like their children to travel to school independently, but they think it’s unsafe to do so. Taking a universal design approach, if we improve pedestrian infrastructure for children, we also make it better for everyone. Safe children means safe adults.

Children are more likely to live closer to school than their parents will live to their workplaces. But do they feel safe to walk? However, walking or riding to school is at the same time workers are driving off to their workplaces – often in a hurry.

School crossing. A man with a child in each hand is crossing the road on a zebra crossing that has a crossing supervisor and an orange flag with the words, children crosing.

Prue Oswin’s survey of parents on the Sunshine Coast revealed their perceived and real barriers to safe walking for their children. Crossing roads without designated crossings was of the most concern. Crossing at roundabouts and roads without a pedestrian refuge island was also concerning. Zebra crossings were the most favoured by parents especially if they were raised. These are the same issues for people with disability and older people.

Pedestrian hot spots tell one story, pedestrian absence tells another. This is where statistical data do not measure journeys not made. Consequently, relying on such data is misleading in the quest to get more people walking and wheeling in their neighbourhoods.

The Safe System approach is about preventing traffic crashes resulting in serious injury. The basic premise is that if a driver or pedestrian makes a mistake, a serious accident is less likely. Oswin’s study shows that there are gaps in this approach that traffic engineers need to address.

Spin offs

The most obvious spin-off from more walking are the health benefits which lead to better concentration and wellbeing. Also if children get walk to and from school independently, parents, usually women, are able to increase their workforce participation. Other beneficiaries are people with mobility impairments, and people who are blind or have low vision. Parents themselves might also be encouraged to walk more.

Designing for people at either end of the age bell curve means that everyone else is included. Consequently, the often forgotten group, children, are key piece of the inclusion jigsaw.

The title of Oswin’s conference paper is, Activating transport to schools with a Safe System, renewable energy and community engagement. There is also a slide deck with lots of photos, graphics and data that underpin the paper and the research.

An academic research paper supports these findings. The paper is titled, Children’s and parents’ perceptions on safe routes to schools: a mixed-methods study investigating factors influencing active school travel.

Abstract

The proportion of children walking or riding to school is dwindling in Australia, while pedestrian injuries are among children’s leading causes of death. A mixed-methods survey was conducted on children and parents of two schools in Australia to understand travel behaviours and attitudes towards active transport to school (ATS).

Results showed that road safety perceptions predicted ATS, unlike distance to school and stranger danger. The design of the routes to school was found to be crucial in facilitating ATS, to address the fear of road danger. Practical implications include the need for more controlled pedestrian crossings and protected bike paths.

Community driven design

Architectural competitions can bring design quality to cities. But the design competition process misses the opportunity to engage deeply with the public. And that means social value could be missing too. The process of community driven design competitions addresses unequal access to design decisions and cultivates social ties.

“Design has a role in building social capital. During a design competition, there are opportunities for placemaking and designing in social connectors.” Georgia Vitale

Image: 11th Street Bridge Park. Courtesy OMA + OLIN

An aerial view of 11th Bridge Street Park which spans a river. It was community driven design.

Community consultation takes many forms, some of which are perfunctory while others are more meaningful. That is, meaningful for the public – the users of places and spaces. The judges of architectural design competitions are other architects. So how does community consultation and engagement fit into this process?

Vitale’s article explores the drawbacks of limited or no meaningful public participation or interaction with users of the building or place or other stakeholders in design competitions. This is at a time for an increased need for social capital to be included in the planning and design process for more socially sustainable communities.

Social infrastructure, shared spaces and streets, and public transport are the outputs of design. However, community engagement with diverse community members helps create new connections. it also encourages people to become involved in the lives of their neighbours. That’s the social benefit of community driven design competitions.

Case Study

Vitale uses 11th Street Bridge Park DC as a case study. The goal is to knit together the two communities on either side of the river. And that’s without displacing people in the marginalised neighbourhoods on the eastern bank.

Bridging community and design: a new way forward is the title of the article in The Fifth Estate. See the original article for links to cited research and case study.

Fair share for walking

Are pedestrians getting a fair share for walking and wheeling on our streets? Or are they forced to drive because footpaths are either not present or poorly maintained? Lack of seating, shade, and too few pedestrian crossings all add to a preference to take the car. More significantly, poor pedestrian infrastructure prevents people with disability and older people from making the journey at all.

Most people value walkability, yet most communities underinvest in pedestrian facilities. We need more investment in footpaths and pedestrian crossings to better serve community.

A black car is approaching a pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian and background are blurred to give the appearance of speed.

Todd Litman summarises the key points in a research paper from the US, which looked at walking rates among countries. The graph below shows Australia and the US at the bottom of the list.

Graph showing Australia and USA at the bottom of the walking list with European countries doing much better, led by UK.

The percentage of total trips made by walking by country

People who cannot drive or own a car are most disadvantaged because they have little choice but to walk or wheel. If the infrastructure is unsupportive or feels unsafe, many will avoid an area or just not make the journey. Consequently the prevalence of disability is invisible to planners.

Assumptions about older people all living in aged care also makes invisible the 95% of older people living in the community. However, plans or designs recommended as suited to aged care locations can, and should, be applied throughout the community.

Why people don’t walk

A graph from Litman shows the reasons people don’t walk by age group. The graph supports statistics of prevalence of health issues in the community. While it is expected that older age groups would cite health as a reason for not walking more, 25-30% of younger age groups also cite health.

Graph showing the reasons different generations don't walk more than they do. Older people cite their health in greater numbers than other generations, but younger cohorts are in the 25% to 305 range of health condition too.

Not feeling safe due to traffic is another factor with an average of 40% saying this is an issue. The lower statistical count on this question for older people is likely due to only making journeys where they feel safe as they are more risk averse.

Walkability solutions

The solutions rest on a connected network of footpaths and to services such as shops, cafes, and medical centres within walking distance. These footpaths need to clearly separate pedestrians from cyclists and motor vehicles. Shared paths are particularly problematic for older people, people with dogs, and people with vision and hearing impairments.

The title of the Todd Litman article is Fair share for walking. He mentions universal design standards for footpaths that are smooth and wide. They also need kerb ramps compliant to standards for all pedestrians. Cost arguments need to be met with counter arguments of the human and environmental cost of not creating pedestrian environments that encourage walking and wheeling.

The research paper mentioned in the Litman article is titled Overview of Walking Rates, Walking Safety and Government Policies to Encourage More and Safer Walking in Europe and North America. European countries have shown the way on how to encourage walking and wheeling.

From the abstract

This paper documents variation in walking rates among countries, cities in the same country, and in different parts of the same city.

Our international analysis shows that walking rates are highest for short trips, higher for women than for men, decline with increasing income, and remain constant as age increases. Walking fatality rates are much higher in the USA compared with the other countries we examined, both per capita and per km walked.

Government policies for increasing walking rates and improving pedestrian safety include: integrated networks of

  • safe and convenient walking infrastructure;
  • roadways and intersections designed for the needs of pedestrians;
  • land-use regulations that encourage mixed uses and short trip distances;
  • lower city-wide speed limits and traffic calming in residential neighborhoods;
  • reduced supply and increased price of parking;
  • traffic laws that give priority to pedestrians;
  • improved traffic education for motorists and non-motorists;
  • tax surcharges on large personal vehicles; and
  • strict enforcement of laws against drink and distracted driving.

Teenagers and architecture

How about introducing architecture to children and teenagers in school as a means of getting better architecture? Teachers can use architecture as a learning resource for other subjects as well. De-a Arhitectura Association thinks bringing teenagers and architecture together is a good idea. It’s also a good way to give voice to children and teenagers and what they want from the built environment.

De-a Arhitectura has a network of built environment professionals who share knowledge with children and teenagers.

Image from a De-a Arhitectura workshop.

A picture from the De-a Ahitectura workshop. A teenager is putting a pin on a large map on a wall

The way professionals understand the built environment and the way the public see it are quite different. One group often left out of consultations is teenagers. Consequently, De-a Arhitectura set about finding out how to give voice to teens.

Using workshop methods, participants analysed their city for facilities and how it feels to be in the city. One workshop focused on the experience of pushing a stroller, being in a wheelchair, and pulling luggage. The research paper describes the workshop methods used in the project.

The follow up project provided a way to raise awareness that teenagers perspective should matter. Teenagers have a language of their own and the researchers found they had energy and innovative ideas. They engaged younger and older people in their lives in the stories they create. And they provided a fresh angle or perspective on things.

The researchers conclude that teenagers have their own visions and benefits from interacting with public space and the activities they carry out.

The title of the paper is, Empowering Teenagers Through Built Environment Education While Experimenting (In)The Public Space. Published in the proceedings of the 2023 World Congress of Architects.

From the abstract

Teenagers may not be the most obvious left-out category of people, but in the design and use of public spaces they are often left out. Public space belongs to everyone, yet teenagers have few ways make their voices heard. How do they demand their own space, which represents their identities and offers a creative and comfortable environment in which they can socialise and evolve?

De-a Arhitectura Association began to develop the Urban Up educational program in 2016. It was a starting point in diversifying its portfolio with teenagers, aiming to be inclusive of all categories and backgrounds.

Throughout the past years, Urban Up has tried to hear their wishes and expectations from the built environment and the public spaces they use. We used different hands-on activities (extracurricular) and with a design thinking methodology for improving their schools.

Trying to constantly find better communication channels and to reduce the generational distances, we started a fellowship program for students in different study fields connected to the built environment (multidisciplinary teams), in order to bring teenagers and young adults together.

The students became mentors for the high school students, in workshops they co-designed, aiming to engage them in better understanding and using public spaces. It is our belief that the more aware and involved teenagers are today, the more active and responsible citizens they will be tomorrow.

A neurodiverse perspective

Mollie Pittaway gives a neurodiverse perspective on the world in a Medium magazine article. She describes 10 ways autistic people are different to neurotypical people. She makes it clear in the beginning that she doesn’t speak for all autistic people. Pittaway just wants to emphasise cultural differences. Understanding these differences are useful in the workplace for managing and interacting with staff who might be autistic.

Understanding how autistic or neurodiverse people see the world and process information is key to being inclusive in any situation. They don’t need to be the odd one out.

A pack of 12 eggs. 11 are brown and one is white. It represents a neurodiverse perspective of the odd one out.

We all have different ways of experiencing the world and interacting with one another. However, sometimes it is difficult to empathise with each other when our experiences are quite different. Pittaway presents ten differences to neurotypical people are briefly outlined below. See the article in Medium for a more detailed explanation.

10 ways autistic people are different

Small talk: This can feel fake or unimportant, because autistic people want to talk about deeper, meaningful things. Consequently, they don’t join in conversations about pop culture, TV shows or sports games. This means they appear shy or aloof.

Eye contact: Eye contact is considered “normal” and courteous to neurotypical people. Pittaway says she loses her train of thought when looking at someone. This makes it look like they are bored or indifferent.

Directness and empathy

Directness: Neurotypical people can deal with ambiguity in communication rather than saying exactly what they are looking for. Pittaway says she needs as much clarification as possible and finds it difficult not to be direct. This can be perceived as being blunt or rude.

Empathy: When someone is upset many neurotypical people listen and talk things through. Pittaway, however, says her way is to talk about her similar experiences as a way to show she understands. Finding the right words is difficult. However, this can be viewed as moving attention to themselves and therefore being selfish.

Social situations

Social connection: Pittaway says that in comparison to neurotypical people she has a low “social battery”. This means she doesn’t seek frequent social connection such as going to the pub or a party. Recharging her social battery might mean refusing invitations to events.

Interests: Differences are less obvious when it comes to talking about interests. Some autistic people can remember a wide range of facts, but these facts can be boring to others. Everyone has the ability to bore people with their special interests.

Spontaneity: Last minute plans or sudden changes in plan can be challenging for autistic people. Changing routines is difficult and can take extra energy when recharging is required.

Sensory overload: Background noise, traffic, nightclubs and crowding make it a struggle for autistic people to concentrate. They can’t filter the information in the same way as others and just try to hide their distress.

Morals and conforming

Hypermoralism: Autistic people see things in black and white whereas neurotypical people see nuance in things. Pittaway says holding the high moral ground is one of the best traits because they want the best for others. However, they might be seen as the “goody two-shoes” and their concerns are ignored.

Conforming: Going along with the status quo is difficult because autistic people need to understand why things need to be done a certain way. That can make for a lot of questions. This makes it inconvenient for those at the top because it feels like their authority is being questioned.

Pittaway concludes by saying there isn’t any right or better way to communicated. But it is important to respect differences.

The title of the article is 10 Significant ways autistic people are different to neurotypical people. As stated above, this is one person’s experience of being autistic. However, the autism spectrum captures many types of neurodiversity. This is one view.

Neurodiversity is an identity not a disorder

Psychologist John Elder Robison provides a personal view of neurodiversity in his writings. A review of his book in the Psychology Today blog outlines his experience. A key point is that if one in seven children in the US are now identified as neurodiverse, is this really an exception to “normal”? The title of the book is Look me in the Eye: My Life With Asperger’s.

Selwyn Goldsmith and Universal Design

Architects Selwyn Goldsmith and Ronald Mace were leaders in the field of universal design. Both contracted polio in their childhood but this did not stop them from championing the disability rights movement. Today, Mace is widely recognised in the universal design movement. However, Goldsmith was very active in the UK and wrote four books. The last of which was in 2000, titled Universal Design.

Although the book is more than 20 years old, it remains a good reference for architects with some wise advice on attitude.

“The architect does not start with the presumption that people with disabilities are abnormal, are peculiar and different… [or] packaged together with a set of special-for-the-disabled accessibility standards, … presented in top down mode as add-ons to unspecified normal provision.” Image from The Guardian

Head and shoulders of Selwyn Goldsmith. Photo from The Guardian.

Today’s universal design campaigners still find this attitude within the general design community. The resistance to that paradigm change Goldsmith discusses remains 25 years on.

From the Routledge book description

“Universal Design presents detailed design guidance for architects in an easily referenced form. Covering both public buildings and private housing, it includes informative anthropometric data, along with illustrative examples of the planning of circulation spaces, sanitary facilities, car parking spaces and seating spaces for wheelchair users in cinemas and theatres. It is a valuable manual in enhancing understanding of the basic principles of ‘universal design’.

The aim – to encourage architects to extend the parameters of normal provision, by looking to go beyond the prescribed minimum design standards of the Part M building regulation, Access and facilities for disabled people.”

The contents of the book include

  • Building users: Mobility Equipment; Ambulant disabled people; Wheelchair users; Scooter users; Pushchair users;
  • Anthropometric measures; Ambulant people; Wheelchair users;
  • Heights of fixtures and fittings; Mirrors; Windows; Shelves; Work surfaces; Digital code panels; Socket outlets; Vertical Circulation; Steps and stairs; Ramps; Handrails; Spaces for wheelchair manoeuvre; Movement through door openings; Entrances to buildings; Entrance lobbies;
  • Sanitary facilities; Cloakroom lobbies; WCs; Wash basins; Baths and bathrooms; Shower and shower rooms; Changing rooms and dressing rooms; Lifts; Platform lifts and stairlifts; Seating spaces; Kitchens; Bedrooms; Car parking spaces.
Front cover of Selwyn Goldsmith's book, Universal Design. Purple blue background with white text and graphic images.

Goldsmith’s first book was in 1963 titled Designing for the Disabled – an entirely new concept at the time. He expanded this publication in 1967. A third book in 1992, Designing for the Disabled – The New Paradigm, expanded his focus to children and prams. His research led to the first kerb cuts in the UK. Selwyn Goldsmith died in 2011.