Author: Jane Bringolf

Making questionnaires more readable

A young woman sits at a desk with her laptop open. She has her face covered by her hands and is indicating distress. Time to make questionnaires more readable.One area of inclusion and accessibility that often gets forgotten is readability of forms and questionnaires. Academics and marketing professionals regularly use surveys to get information from specific groups of people. Within those groups will be people with varying levels of capability in terms of being able to decipher what’s on the screen or form. And it isn’t all about literacy and reading ability. It’s about the different ways people see and interpret the information. Here are some good tips for making questionnaires more readable from Alex Haagaard in Medium. 

Likert Scales

Likert scales aren’t great for screen readers because they often interpret them as tables. But much depends on the design of the survey platform. Even if they are screen-readable, Likert scales can be difficult for people who are neurodiverse. People who are autistic or dyslexic struggle with visual tracking across and between rows. This creates the need to exert more brain power to focus on getting the corresponding check box. 

Instead of using a Likert scale, use a series multiple choice questions to capture the same information. Creating page breaks to separate distinct sections of the questionnaire also helps with readability for everyone.

Balancing access conflicts

A hand holding a pen poised on a questionnaire form ready to check a box on the form. There is lots of lines of text and check boxes. As is often the case, making something more accessible for one group can create problems for another. So it’s important to identify these early and eliminate or mitigate the barriers. 

One solution is to provide optional comment boxes where the participant can choose whether to reply in their own words. People who want to quickly complete the questionnaire can skip this.  

Haagaard takes things a step further with a suggestion to provide detailed explanations about terms and concepts at the beginning of each section. However, this is tiresome for screen readers and others might find this overwhelming. Participants can be asked at the beginning of the survey if they would like the key information repeated for each section. Those who say no can have the concise experience.

In summary, Haagaard acknowledges that it is unrealistic to assume that anything can be fully accessible to everyone. That means that there will still be occasions where an alternative means of participating is required. This might be an interview or an email. 

The title of the article is Making Your Surveys More Readable. This is the third in a series on cognitively accessible survey design. 

Museums and universal design

The advent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prompted museums and galleries to make their premises and exhibits accessible. But is compliance to standards, sufficient to enjoy a museum experience? The answer is probably, no. So museums need to take a universal design approach if the aim is inclusion, not just physical access.

A group of occupational therapists decided to find out the level of accessibility in museums. Was the ADA sufficient, or was a universal design approach required?

Image: Smithsonian Institute

The original Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC. A red brick building in the centre of all the Smithsonian museums on the same site.

Participants were recruited from state and regional museum associations. Twenty-five museum associations agreed to participate. At the commencement of the survey participants were given information about the differences between the ADA standards and universal design. This was to help respondents identify if they had incorporated universal design principles and ideas into their museums.

Sixty respondents completed the survey and were asked to self-rate their museum’s accessibility on a Likert scale. Overall, they all thought they provided good accessibility, but they also reported things that needed improvement.

The article explains more about the method and questions and the successes and challenges. People with vision impairment were least likely to be accommodated. Another challenge was providing access to and within historical buildings.

The role of staff

The key component for an inclusive and accessible experience is the skills and knowledge of staff. However, few museums offered disability awareness training or consulted with members of the disability community.

Not unexpectedly, the data revealed that respondents did not know the difference between ADA compliance and universal design. They thought ramps and accessible bathrooms were universal design.

Occupational therapists can help

The article concludes with a nod to occupational therapists being in a unique position to help museums overcome challenges. They are also qualified to train museum staff on how to be inclusive in their approach to people with disability. They make a call to action for partnerships between occupational therapists and all museum stakeholders.

The title of the article is, A Survey of Universal Design at Museums: Current Industry Practice and Perceptions. It is open access.

From the abstract

Background: This study explores current industry practice and perceptions of accessibility and universal design in a small sample of American museums. Suggestions for how occupational therapists can help museums go above and beyond ADA guidelines are provided.

Method: Data were collected using a 17-item cross-sectional survey. Twenty-five museum associations assisted with recruitment.

Results: Sixty respondents participated in the survey. The key challenges were accommodations for people with vision impairment, and physical barriers in historial buildings. Confusion between ADA standards and universal design was evident in several responses.

Conclusion: The most frequently reported accessibility rating was good. Staff training and community-based partnerships were often overlooked. There is a potential role for occupational therapists to assist museums with staff training, recruiting people with disabilities, and establishing community partnerships.

Universal design and future of transport

What will transport in the future look like, and will it be universally designed? Engineers Australia’s new discussion paper takes a fresh look at transport systems and infrastructure. That means taking a long-term view of the relationship with community, government policy and regulations. A big job with lot of dots to join up. 

Front cover of the future of transport discussion paper. Transport systems are designed to move people and freight, but they need different things. If we are to reduce emissions, we need innovative transport options. That means talking to consumers – passengers, pedestrians, drivers, and riders. It also means revising regulations and digital infrastructure. 

The title of the discussion paper is The future of transport. The section on access for all discusses universal access in terms of people with “mobility challenges”. Reference is made to the the Universal design for transport discussion paper and lists the benefits of accessible transport.

Benefits include better access to employment opportunities and participation, and enhancing quality of life. Getting the design right at the beginning saves money, increases patronage and enhances economic activity. The next section has more information on the earlier universal design for transport paper. 

Engineers Australia welcomes feedback on the latest discussion paper to help inform future work. To provide feedback please email policy@engineersaustralia.org.au 

Front cover of the Universal design for transport discussion paper.Universal design for transport

The paper’s purpose commences with disability statistics followed by reference to disability discrimination legislation and standards. There is a list of benefits and some case studies followed by recommendations. Although the document uses “universal design” in the title, it uses “universal access”. Not quite the same thing. 

Recommendations

The recommendations from Universal design for transport are:

1. Recognise that compliance alone doesn’t mean good accessibility – focus on universal access.
2. Support the DSAPT (Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport) modernisation process.
3. Leverage existing programs (fleet purchasing, major projects) to get universal access outcomes.
4. Need for long term program and state commitment to retrofitting existing infrastructure to achieve DSAPT standards – including a funding commitment.
5. Make more use of state-based accessibility groups in understanding solutions and prioritisation of finite funding- i.e., maximise accessible benefits.
6. Need to make sure there is access to public transport for those who are reliant on public transport for mobility due to their disability, including in regional areas.
7. Leverage technological advances including internet of things (IOT) and artificial intelligence into wayfinding, access to services etc.
8. Engineers and designers (and regulators) need to have agile mindset to new technologies and ways of providing accessible transport options.
9. Opportunities for new vehicles to be designed for more accessibility- zero emission busses (ZEBs), new trams and trains.
10. Universal access needs to be a guiding principle through the design process not post-design check.
11. Harmonise public transport and active transport infrastructure design standards and best operating practices.
12. Subject matter experts should be engaged at project commencement to identify appropriate standards that lead to good accessibility outcomes.

Universal design should be part of land-use planning, transport planning, and sustainable development, not just equity and inclusion.

The Universal Design for Transport: Transport Australia Society Discussion Paper was published in April 2022

The future of transport discussion paper was published January 2023. To provide feedback please email policy@engineersaustralia.org.au 

 

Safe public spaces for girls

Public spaces aren’t equal places. That is, some people don’t feel safe or welcome in particular places. It seems this is the case for teenage girls. According to some Swedish research, public spaces aren’t used equally by girls and boys. So creating safe public spaces for girls is a challenge for urban and landscape designers. 

A night time image of a swing set comprising large rings. They are illuminated in purple and blue.
Swing Time – Höweler+Yoon. Photo by John Horner

Until the age of seven, boys and girls use public facilities, such playgrounds, on an equal basis to boys. According to a 2020 Girl Guides UK survey, 62 percent of girls aged 11-21 years said they didn’t have an outdoor sport or facility they felt safe to use. What would encourage them to go out? Safer places, less catcalling and more things to do they said. 

Teenage invaders?

Girls like to use swings but they are placed with the equipment for young children. If teenagers use them they are seen as invaders – not welcome. Branko Miletic in Architecture and Design magazine says,

“Come to think of it, teenagers are seen as invaders in most public spaces: they are too old for playgrounds, don’t have the money for malls or cafes, and also run the risk of harassment in public facilities overrun by boys and men. But they also yearn for physical activity and movement, connecting with friends, having fun conversations, walking and biking, and indulging in sports and games at their own pace, without being judged or commented upon in a public space.”

Multi-use areas such as skate parks, basketball courts and kickabout areas are designed for ‘young people’. However, boys and young men tendt to dominate these areas. Boys tend to dominate single large spaces while girls are more comfortable in broken-up spaces. In terms of seating, boys want to watch the action while girls like to face each other to talk. 

Ask the girls

The answer, of course is to involve girls in the design process. Ask them what they want in a public space. A local authority in Sweden together with architects constructed a model designed with girls. The design revealed a preference for places with colour, sitting face to face, protected from weather, and to see without necessarily being seen. 

Public spaces must cater for all ages. It’s not just about physical activity, it about social interaction and feeling safe. It would be interesting to do a similar study with older people so we can create intergenerational spaces too. 

The title of the article in Architecture and Design is, Designing safe public spaces for teenage girls.

 

Singapore’s Universal Design Index

Singapore embraced universal design principles in their building code in 2006. The government recognised the importance of designing buildings and homes for everyone. Similarly to other nations, Singapore’s population is ageing and some thoughtful planning was needed. Singapore’s universal design index is an assessment tool with star ratings for user-friendliness.

For building designers aiming to go beyond Australia’s minimum standards, this guide has specific design information to help. Plain language and lots of photos make this an easy to read document.

Front cover of the Guide to universal design index.

Singapore’s Universal Design index (UDi) guide assists architects, designers and building owner to understand the framework, procedure and applicability of the UDi. It has explanatory notes and photo examples that aid awareness and understanding. The guide is published by Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority. It builds on other universal design guides, and the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment.

It’s about being user-friendly

I took this photo of a sign at Gardens by the Bay in 2016. It is an attempt to show that universal design is not just about disability. Editor.

Sign showing symbols for wheelchair access and baby stroller access

The UDi provides indicators on the level of user-friendliness for each key user groups. The specific user groups are people with disability, older people, families with young children and expectant and nursing mothers.

The four key user groups: people with disability, older people, families with young children, expectant/nursing mothers.
User Group graphic from the Universal Design Index.

The guide is a building assessment tool with star ratings. The aggregate level of user friendliness across the user groups provides the Universal Design Index rating. This indicates the level of universal design implementation achieved.

A chart showing a five star rating from one indicating minimum compliance, to five indicating all groups considered.
User-friendliness rating scale as shown in the UDi guide.

And there is detail

This comprehensive guide has specific design details on circulation, wayfinding, sensory impairments, sanitary facilities and elder-friendly rooms, residential features, hotels, serviced apartments, and more. Some of the photos, such as sanitary facilities, and hotel rooms, look very disability-specific, but there are some good design ideas too.

In essence it is a relatively easy to read building guide presented as a self-assessment tool. It covers every design element you can think of in public buildings and residential settings. It’s also an exemplar of plain language that other guides could follow.

Global roadmap for healthy longevity

When we use the phrase “design for all ages” it usually means “let’s include older people as well”. How did they get left out in the first place? The concepts underpinning universal design aim to overcome this division of ages. Many research articles address the issues, but community attitudes are slow to change. The Global Roadmap for Healthy Longevity is yet another publication promoting the need to be (older) age-friendly. It takes a global view with case studies and recommendations. 

Chapter 5 of the roadmap focuses on physical environment enablers. These include housing, public space and infrastructure, transportation, climate change and digital access. There’s very little new information in this chapter, but it brings together international research for useful recommendations.

A circle of six different coloured rings each with a key actor for an all of society approach to healthy longevity.
Six key areas of collaboration are needed.

Collaboration is needed at all levels including non government and local community organisations, the private sector, researchers and families. 

One of the key recommendations is taking a universal design approach and involving people in design processes. There is more emphasis on communities getting involved in the solutions. Strategic action plans for ageing societies exist in many countries, but few are heeded. That’s because they are viewed as being for a single sector or age group. Therefore collective action is needed. 

The Global Roadmap for Healthy Longevity is not just about older people. It recognises that all ages need to be considered, for younger people will eventually get older. It is a comprehensive publication. Here is a sample of findings from Chapter five. 

Housing

“Finding 5-1: Housing that encourages independence, social integration, and mobility is a key factor in older adults’ ability to realize healthy longevity, but the availability and affordability of this type of housing are limited, especially for those with limited financial resources.”

Walkability

“Finding 5-3: Intentionally designed public spaces and built environments can play an important role in influencing healthy longevity. Creating opportunities for mobility, walkability, access to green space, and social engagement can enhance the lives of older people and reduce mortality and morbidity.”

Finding 5-4: Public infrastructure, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and well-lit streets, can influence the usability of an area and adults’ perception of safety.”

Transportation

“Finding 5-5: Safe and accessible transportation options can give older adults the opportunity to enjoy independent mobility around their community instead of avoiding social activities and becoming isolated and lonely.”

Information and communications technology

“Finding 5-6: Access to broadband internet is integral to many aspects of society. Low-income and rural households are especially likely to lack broadband access, which greatly influences their equitable access to other resources and their ability to work remotely and stay connected to social networks.”

Global Roadmap for Healthy Longevity is published by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Global Roadmap for Healthy Longevity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26144. The full publication is available for download. 

 

Excluding by design: an Indigenous perspective

Front cover of the book with West's chapter on an Indigenous perspective on design.Peter West presents a philosophical essay on design from an Indigenous perspective. He argues that universal design is a Western thought based on Western knowledge systems. Although co-design invites others in it’s still driven by Western white values. 

West’s essay is an academic piece covering ideas that challenge Western notions of design. He contends that lack of indigenous sovereignty is a problem because it counters Western knowledge systems and governance. 

West argues that while Design invites others in (co-design methods), it remains “politely dominant”. Asking to be included – to be “let in” – begs questions such as, What am I now being included in? And at what cost and whose larger purpose? These are questions other marginalised groups might also ask. 

The book chapter by Peter West is titled, Excluding by design and is open access. 

From the conclusion

Indigenous sovereignty (and sovereignties) is the foundation from which non-Indigenous people can be in sovereign relationship, therefore Indigenous sovereignty cannot be othered, marginalised or included.

I am surrounded by the pluriversality of Indigenous sovereignties not as something I can know through Western ways of knowing or that attempting to replicate is knowing, but what I need to know is how to live and Design in a sovereign relationship. 

What is most likely to disrupt my relationship to Indigenous sovereignty is non-Indigeneity reorganising itself as it designs the gravitational pull of Western standards of what can be included, empathised with and what creates a palatable form of diversity.

Now, diversity and inclusion risks being an activity of designing ways of overcoming gaps in design and avoiding the admission that the knowledge base itself is the problem.

From the abstract

Western Design education and Design practice discourse is beginning to
express a need for greater diversity and inclusion.  For design to be inclusive, this must also beg the questions: Who has been excluded from Design, what are these practices of exclusion and what is revealed of Designs privilege to assume the position of host and includer?

However, when approached through Designs problem, solution mindset diversity and inclusion is at risk of being an answer motivated by offering a
more broadly transactional reach and ‘usefulness’.

It is important to recognise that the shift to inclusion as a policy emphasis does not erase past exclusions. Instead, the desire for diversity and inclusion can lead to Design positioning itself as benefactor, in a state of white virtue, rather than recognising itself as dominant discipline and system which politely adapts and consumes the invited other. 

In Australian design contexts, there is an enthusiastic desire to engage with and include Indigenous peoples and knowledges within Western design education institutions. However, I contend that the inability to recognise and be in relation to Indigenous sovereignty, as the basis of the Australian state, has resulted in Design being ill-equipped and perhaps incapable of practicing in relation to Indigenous knowledge systems (sovereignty).

This chapter explores contends that it is necessary to identify and disrupt (white) racialised logics within design lest it consume pluriversal thinking as a ‘value add’. I argue that the white racialised logics in design are illusive, adaptive and an exclusive disciplining practice. I draw upon critical race whiteness and indigeneity theory along with the seminal work of the Decolonising Design Group to explore a critical reset of the design episteme in relation to Indigenous sovereignty by knowing its ontological and epistemic boundedness.

Dementia and Planning

An older man sits with his back to the camera in a cafe. Urban planning for dementia allows people to get out and about.Most people living with dementia live at home in the community, not in a facility. Dementia develops over time and people experience it differently. With the right supports they can live independently for several years after diagnosis. Thoughtful urban planning and design is part of the web of community supports. Samantha Biglieri discuses dementia and planning in her short article.

The title of the article is, Dementia and Planning: Expanding accessibility through design and the planning process. It covers walkability and land use strategies, wayfinding, and urban design for comfort and safety. Unique landmarks in the form of street furniture and public art can go a long way in orientating everyone.

Planning specifics

Biglieri makes the following suggestions:

    • A short irregular grid pattern of streets to create identifiable intersections.
    • Streets with ample space for pedestrian with wide buffer zones between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
    • Variated architectural styles within the same development. Vary the landscape to provide unique landmarks. This includes mixed land-use, different styles of street furniture, public art and vegetation. 
    • Development of memorable landscape features, open public squares and community facilities that promote social interaction and a sense of belonging. 

Summary

Contrary to popular belief, over two thirds of Canadians with dementia live in the community as opposed to congregate living. This begs a question that has not been adequately explored in planning practice or academia: How can we as planners who deal with land-use, community design, and public consultation every day, understand and meet the needs of people with dementia (PWD), who are citizens just like everyone else? After examining existing work on the relationship between the built environment and PWD, I argue a dementia-specific approach to planning practice and research is needed in the Canadian context. 

 

Shared space on streets and roads

Perceptions of safe walking and cycling routes relate more to visual separation than physical barriers. Bushes provide little, if any, protection for pedestrians and cyclists, but they are sufficient to give a sense of safety. That was a finding in a new report from Germany. So the issues related to shared space on streets and roads is more about the sense of separation not provided by road markings.

Shared space on streets and roads is often contested space. In urban settings, shared space also includes sharing with buildings, street furniture, kiosks, trees and other vegetation.

A cycle-way divided by yellow bollards with a man on an e-scooter and a man on bicycle travelling in opposite directions. Pedestrians are visible on the separated footway.

Many pedestrians avoid shared paths due to the likelihood of cyclists approaching suddenly or silently. It makes them feel unsafe. Cyclists find they need to concentrate more when sharing space with pedestrians. So it seems the shared pathway experiment needs a serious review. What better way than to ask pedestrians and cyclists?

A total of 408 participants took part in a study on this topic. Four options were provided to participants using 3D virtual presentations followed by a survey. The four options for dividing shared space were, bollards, stones, bushes and no treatment. Both pedestrians and cyclists put bushes as their first preference and no treatment as their last preference. Visual separation in the form of lines or road and path marking are considered an insufficient solution.

The study also shows the importance of involving street and road users in design decision processes.

While the researchers challenged the concept of user integration, they do not recommend eliminating the shared space concept. Rather, they propose we re-think the shared space concept for all street and road users, particularly pedestrians who are the most vulnerable.

The title of the article is, Reimagining shared (space) street design: Segregating to better integrate?

Abstract

The shared space concept proposes to reduce traffic control to integrate road users. Yet, defining boundaries to create a pedestrian safe zone is particularly relevant for a successful implementation. Therefore, to determine if road users also expect a protective barrier delimiting the safe zone, this paper presents part of the results of an online survey that evaluated the preferences of pedestrians and cyclists.

A total of 408 participants completed the survey and ranked the alternatives (i.e. none, bollards, bushes, and stones) according to their preferences. Approaches suitable for ranking data were then applied to further understand the results, which indicated that only providing a safe zone with visual separation is not necessarily preferred when compared to the provision of additional physical barriers.

Both pedestrians and cyclists prefer bushes over the presented alternatives. As bushes objectively provide less physical protection than bollards and stones, it can be assumed that the sense of segregation, rather than the physical protection itself, should be considered in shared space design.

By challenging the concept of user integration, this paper suggests reinterpreting the shared space design to combine physical barriers in an attempt to better accommodate vulnerable road users.

Step-free railway stations: benefits for all

If any aspect of a public transit journey creates inconvenience or anxiety, people just won’t make the journey. Or only make when it is essential. This has a knock-on affect for socialisation and the economy. People with reduced mobility usually face more inconveniences than others when using public transport. A study in the UK found that step-free railway stations has benefits for all.

A classic view of a railway station in the UK. Access to the train carriage looks difficult due to the gap between the platform and the carriage door.

A train waits at a railway station platform. In the distance there is a flight of steps to an overpass. The train look modern but the platform looks old.

Lifts to platforms are a good start but this is only one link in the whole journey. The physical aspects are getting to the station, into the station, using a transit card or ticket, and getting onto the platform. Then there’s the matter of getting onto the train, finding a seat, getting off again and ready to negotiate the platform and station at the destination. Lots of actions to seamlessly link up. And then there is the information side of things.

What is step-free?

Researchers in the UK found that transport professionals had different definitions of step-free. Some used guidelines or standards rather than critically thinking about the overall design of the train or station. However, they all interpreted “step-free” as being physical, whereas if it were to be inclusive, it would consider more than steps in and around the station and the train.

Using mixed methods, the researchers found that there was no agreement about what constituted step-free access. In some instances it was confined to the station itself, while in others it included the street to train.

The researchers list the key benefits of inclusive railway design in a table. It tabulates three types of benefit: economic, mental health and physical health. Both direct and indirect revenue and environmental benefits are also included.

Although this paper is focused on UK railway stations and and operators, it makes the links between good accessible, inclusive design and benefits for the economy and society. It goes beyond the traditional benefits for people with reduced mobility, which is what most other studies have done.

Once again, designing for a marginalised group means designing for everyone.

The title of the article is, Step-free railway station access in the UK: the value of inclusive design. The article is part of a collection of papers in a special journal issue, Towards collaborative and more inclusive transport systems. All articles are open access.

From the Abstract

People with reduced mobility travel less than than others. That’s despite substantial investment in step-free access at UK railway stations. This research examines the benefits of step-free access and the wider benefits of railway station accessibility.

The results show that the benefits of step-free access extend beyond those with reduced mobility. It demonstrates the potential to positively affect the society economically, environmentally, and socially.

Government and interested stakeholders should commit to expanding the number and coverage of step-free stations throughout the UK. They should ensure that the appraisal process for investment in step-free accessibility appropriately captures both user and non-user benefits.


Accessibility Toolbar