How did you choose the colours for your last website update? Did you choose colours based on your brand logo and text or did you use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) algorithm? But can the WCAG algorithm guarantee good legible colour contrasts for websites? Research by The University of Cambridge says it doesn’t. So they have developed an alternative algorithm for good colour contrast for websites.
Examples of black and white text for comparison
Since January 2022, the Accessible Perceptual Contrast Algorithm proposes that legibility of text on websites is better with perceived difference than a mathematical contrast ratio. White text on strong coloured backgrounds are preferred over black text in almost all cases in the study.
In the examples above, the black text passes the WCAG contrast ratio but fails the white text. The Accessible Perceptual Contrast Algorithm passes the white text and fails the black text.
This is important information for choosing brand logos and text so it isn’t just something web designers should know. Many website designs are guided by brand colours so choose carefully. This information is also important for product labelling especially for online shopping.
The Livable Housing Design Standard applies to all new Class 1a and Class 2 buildings. Class 1a buildings are detached houses, row houses, terraces, townhouses and villa units. Class 2 buildings are apartment buildings and the design requirements apply inside the apartment. Public access requirements cover the public areas. To aid practitioners, the Australian Building Codes Board has produced a Livable Housing Handbook.
The Livable Housing Design Standard sets out minimum requirements for mainstream dwellings.
The title, ‘Livable Housing Design’ comes from Livable Housing Australia’s voluntary guidelines. The features in these guidelines form the basis of the mandatory requirements, which are similar to Livable Housing Australia’s ‘silver level’.
The Livable Housing Design Handbookaims to help practitioners understand the relevant sections of the building code. These are Part G7 of NCC Volume One, Part H8 of NCC Volume Two, and the ABCB Standard for Livable Housing Design.
The Handbook covers design issues in generic terms and does not provide specific compliance advice. It aims to assist practitioners develop solutions to comply with the NCC requirements.
The intent of livable housing design is “to ensure that housing is designed to meet the needs of the community, including older people and those with a mobility-related disability.”
The appendices have examples of bathroom layouts and a guide for meeting compliance with the NCC.
Going beyond the Livable Housing standard
The Australian Building Codes Board has also produced a guide for going beyond the minimum standard. The voluntary standard is generally based on Livable Housing Australia’s “Gold level”. These features provide a greater level of livability across the lifespan for more people, and go beyond the “silver level”. Consequently, exceeding the minimum mandatory requirements will still achieve compliance.
This additional set of non-mandatory technical provisions will better meet the needs of the community. They are similar to the Gold level in the original voluntary Livable Housing Design Guidelines.
Australian homes are some of the largest in the world and the features in the voluntary standard should not be difficult to achieve.
Extensions and major renovations to existing homes will be based on state or territory requirements to comply with the standard. For example, if the works require a council development application.
Online learning – Livable Housing Design
CUDA has acquired the licence from the Australian Building Codes Board to run their course on Livable Housing Design Standard. The course is based on the Handbook and the Standard. This is a technical course for home-building professionals. Find out more about this course. and all the different ways to achieve a level entry.
The long road to Livable Housing
And the journey isn’t over yet. While the Livable Housing Standard is now in the national code, it is up to each state and territory to implement it. Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, ACT and Northern Territory have agreed to implementation. South Australia has come late to the party but is now working on an implementation strategy.
Australian Network for Universal Housing Design (ANUHD) has been leading the charge for the reforms for twenty years. They believe that Western Australia could also sign up to implement the standard eventually. However, as of September 2023, NSW remains uncommitted. The livable housing story of citizen advocacy is documented in a conference paper.
Universally designed dream home
Not your average home. This one goes beyond even enhanced standards in the Livable Housing Design Standard. The video is from O’Shea and Sons Builders and shows what can be done with creative thinking. While this is a top-end of the market home, all the features are possible in mainstream homes. As Nick O’Shea says, “… an absolutely amazing home where functionality and style means absolute beauty.”
Singapore’s rapid urban development didn’t happen without a plan – indeed, it took several integrated plans. The aim of Singapore’s Long-Term Planis for liveable and sustainable homes and built environments for residents. It’s basically a land use and infrastructure plan with a 50 year view. The broad ideas in the plan are translated into Master Plans with detail about land use and density.
Given geographical constraints, Singapore has adopted innovative solutions to achieve a high standard of living for residents.
Singapore’s Liveability Framework
A conference paper by Koh and Leeexplains how the Singapore Liveability Framework has brought liveability, sustainability and prosperity. Developing state-owned land comes with government conditions. Consequently, developments are aligned with the Liveability Framework and master plans. Universal design is considered in all built environment plans.
Housing for All
In 1960 there was an acute housing shortage. In five years they built 50,000 flats to solve the shortage. Then they turned towards providing better housing to meet the aspirations of the population for a better quality of life. Singapore encourages home ownership and supports occupants to purchase their government owned flats.
Planning for Mixed-Use
Public housing is not excluded from prime locations and is mixed with retail, commercial and residential zones. Mixed use developments are also found as part of integrated transport hubs. The integration of mixed-use districts starts at the planning stage and encourages innovative development concepts.
Planning for Polycentricity
Decentralisation is key to being able to live, work and play without the need to travel long distances. Each regional centre has industrial estates, business parks, and educational institutions. At a more detailed level there are schools and shops and a transport node.
Connectivity and Walkability
Roads and expressways take up 12% of the land. Consequently, similarly to other countries, plans are prioritising public transport, walking and cycling, and extending the rail network. Better first and last mile connectivity is a must. Covered linkways connect transportation with residential areas to make walking more comfortable in the tropical weather. Repurposing roads for pedestrian space is also part of the plan.
Convenient access to green and blue
Singapore is more than a concrete jungle. The idea of a garden city began in 1967 as part of transforming Singapore into a clean and green haven for tourists and investors. Of course, residents benefit too.
A city for all ages
Life expectancy has risen by 20 years in the last 60 years and the population is therefore ageing. One in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 years by 2030. While there are various options for older residents, the government has introduced new public housing concepts. Co-location of housing with healthcare facilities, retail and dining areas, and community gardens is one solution. Community Care Apartments are another idea where residents can live independently with support services.
Living in a disrupted world
The conference paper is long and detailed with many case studies and photographs. Having government control over development and developers means strategies are implemented according to the plans. Climate change and COVID are now part of life and Singapore has to move beyond liveability and sustainability to build resilience.
The COVID 19 pandemic has given rise to new thoughts about planning and design of the built environment including public transportation. People with psychosocial disabilities respond in different ways to situations. Travelling was easier for some because of less crowding, but others feared contamination. Facial masks increased anxiety in some, but others found that people not wearing masks a problem. This is where a universal design approach can help.
” … universal design should include the social and organisation environments, in addition to physical design, in terms of making the transport system accessible to everyone.”
Between 20% and 25% of the population have a mental illness at any given time. People with psychosocial disabilities travel less than others leading to social isolation and worsening symptoms. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2030 mental health conditions will be the leading burden of disease.
Improving travel with universal design
Few studies include mental health with reference to universal design. Anja Fleten Nielsen’s study asks “How can a broad understanding of universal design be used to improve travel for people with psychosocial disability?” She investigated the impact of COVID-19 and the main barriers to using public transport.
Nielsen’s study involved in-depth interviews focusing on barriers, travel behaviour during the pandemic and suggested solutions. Recruiting participants was difficult in terms of getting written consent – signing a consent form could raise anxiety levels. Nielsen explains more about methods and the literature review.
The key results are fell into: physical environment, social environment, organisational environment, and individual aspects.
Physical environment: Crowding, important information during the journey, lack of toilet facilities and sensory overload.
Social environment: Negative experiences with fellow passengers and interaction with transport personnel, and being afraid to ask for help.
Organisational environment: Availability and ease of access, and lack of seamlessness between modes with long waiting times.
Individual level: Planning difficulties, travel induced fatigue and financial barriers.
COVID-19 made barriers more apparent
Nielsen’s paper discusses each of the four aspects in detail. The pandemic increased symptoms in many participants and has made them more visible to transport planners. To answer the question about universal design, Nielsen claims that environmental factors are of greater importance. This is because the individual factors are related to special and customised solutions.
Planners and designers need to look beyond physical impairments. Universal design is just as relevant for people with psychosocial disabilities. Social and organisational environments are of equal importance for this group. These are factors that also improve journey experiences for the travelling public.
From the abstract
During and after the pandemic, most informants travelled less and/or used their car more than before. Some stopped using public transport due to fear of contamination, while others found it easier to travel during the pandemic due to less crowding.
Use of facial masks were perceived by some as an additional problem increasing anxiety, while others found it more problematic with fellow passengers not wearing masks. In general, findings support prior studies in terms of barriers related to crowding, lack of seamlessness, financial issues, problems with staff, lack of access in rural areas, and low knowledge of support systems.
Lack of toilet facilities, negative experiences with other passengers, sensory overload, travel-induced fatigue, and problems related to planning are considered problematic. Station areas may pose a barrier for people with former drug addictions. Hence, universal design should include the social and organisation environments, in addition to physical design, in terms of making the transport system accessible to everyone.
What’s the best way to evaluate the application of universal design principles in a project? Is it a checklist? A professional opinion? Or something else? And what kind of evaluation are we talking about? Surely evaluation is about the usability of the building from a user perspective. A group of researchers decided to find out how stakeholders were evaluating universal design in their projects.
“Evaluating universal design requires knowledge in many areas … Should not be done by a single person (e.g., architect), but by a board of people knowledgeable in the building environment, universal design, and of course representative users with varied ranges of disabilities.“
The Australian researchers undertook an extensive study involving 157 participants. More than half reported experience of disability, either themselves or a family member. Academics and access consultants represented the largest number of participants. When asked who is involved in universal design evaluation, the most common response was access consultants (45%). Disability advocates represented almost thirty percent (29.8%).
The research paperexplains the processes used and the data gathered. Participants used specific tools or methods with checklists being a favourite, followed by access audits. This is where the understanding of universal design comes into question. However, some respondents were incorporating user feedback from the design conception stage.
Overall, almost all participants rated evaluation of universal design as being important. When asked who should do the evaluation, building users, building construction stakeholders and multiple stakeholders were identified. There was a trend towards access consultants being the people to do the evaluation.
Conclusion
The researchers claim that evaluation of universal design is being called for and carried out in practice. The results appear to divide into two camps. Those who think of universal design as a standard, and those who understand universal design as an iterative process.
However, evaluation from the perspective of meeting standards (did it comply?), or meeting the project scope (deliverables) does not tell you if the design is usable. The researchers conclude the paper with this sentence:
“[We need to] … better understand how people with disability can effectively participate in design processes, and what factors serve as barriers and facilitators to participation.”
Not sure that more research on how stakeholders evaluate universal design is the issue. Understanding the difference between access standards and universal design is still the key point.
Universal design aims to reduce environmental barriers and enhance usability of buildings for all people, particularly those with disabilities.
This study aimed to gather information on current practice and what stakeholders perceive as important to universal design evaluation. A mixed methods approach was employed, and data were collected via online survey (n = 157) and semi-structured interviews (n = 37).
Participants included industry professionals, policy makers, government officials, academics, and people with disabilities. Just over one-third of participants stated that they had experience of evaluating universal design in public built environments.
Checklists were most commonly used, yet participants expressed concern with their suitability for this purpose. Almost all participants perceived evaluation of universal design as important, citing its value to advocacy, professional development and strengthening the evidence base of universal design.
Findings from this study highlight a tension between a checklist approach, and a multidisciplinary method that encompasses the complexity of universal design application.
Research on the business opportunities in accessible and inclusive tourism is extensive. However, the intent of this research is largely staying on the shelf. A mix of attitudes towards people with disability and a sense of “not knowing where to start” are likely reasons. But you can get inclusive tourism with universal design by co-designing with tourism operators.
” Surprisingly, many cases did not meet the minimal requirements for “older people” and “people in a wheelchair.” … but this result did function as an eye-opener”.
A research group in Belgium has devised a method to uncover business opportunities through universal design. Collaborating with 17 accommodation providers they came up with a seven step process to integrate universal design into their business model. The process is also a way to increase knowledge and understanding of diverse guests and their experiences.
The research group documented their project in a conference paper. It begins by explaining inclusive tourism as a right, a business opportunity and a challenge. They devised a method to use the potential of universal design as a “business transformer”.
Co-designing the 7 steps
Step 1: We created a literature-based universal design screening based on mindset, management and infrastructure.
Step 2: We tested and updated the screening in each of the 17 accommodation providers.
Step 3: We analysed the data for each business which was given to them in a report.
Step 4: The results were further processed with the participant, who decided on priorities.
Step 5: An action plan was devised based on step 4.
Step 6: A concise checklist and a guide with relevant information (tools).
Step 7: A re-evaluation of the business to assess the actual improvement after interventions. Unfortunately the COVID pandemic impacted this research and the last step was not possible with the downturn in tourism.
We describe a 2-year project where the possibilities of universal design were explored. The purpose was to structurally uncover and address potential business opportunities.
The method was based on: inclusive customer journey, linking mindset, management and infrastructure, and diverse user needs. We collaborated with seventeen accommodation providers and developed a seven-step process. The process integrates universal design into their business model.
This book addresses a growing demand to hear the authentic voices and understand the lived tourist experiences of people with disability. The latest volume in The Tourist Experience series challenges what is arguably an exclusionary, marginalising, discriminatory, and ableist (tourism) world.
By drawing attention to the ‘dis/’ in ‘disabled’, the authors provoke the need to change binary thinking about people who live with disability so that they may be ‘able’ to assume the role of tourist.
They engage critical tourism and critical disability studies, and their respective theories, perspectives, and debates, around, for instance, models of disability that shape conceptualisations and worldviews, inclusive research and enabling language, and the ethics of care.
These are pivotal to dismantling normative structures to enable a more inclusive, equitable, and socially just tourist experience that promotes a more independent and dignified tourism world for people with disability.
Tourism and Disability: Book review
Tourism and Disability is a new book addressing the existing challenges and opportunities related to tourism for people with disability. The Booktopia review describes this as an underdeveloped and underestimated niche market. While there is a larger market for family group travel, there is also a market for disability-specific tourism products.
The book examines the strategies, policies, and initiatives at regional, national, and international levels. The aim is to foster the development of accessible tourism. It examines the different social, cultural, legal, and information/interactive barriers to inclusion. The book’s focus is on the distinctive travel demands of people with disability and how their needs differ from the preferences of travellers without disability.
The various chapters provide a multidisciplinary approach to the topic covering management, economics, and statistical analysis. This makes it useful for academics and practitioners alike.
The Title of the book is Tourism and Disability: An economic and managerial perspective. Published by SpringerLink you can purchase individual chapters online. The book is also available from other suppliers. The editors and most contributors are based in Europe where tourism is a key part of the European economy.
The Plain Language Movement is supported by information makers and providers who want more people to read their content. Dense academic language meant for other academics is frustrating for others wanting to learn more. So, it is time for clear language now that more universities are producing open access articles.
“… the plain language movement is rooted in the ideal of an inclusive society… ” Language is not for those with social privilege.
Plain language summaries are a good start and sometimes a requirement of research funding. These summaries are often shown as four or five short bullet points before the academic abstract. And now we have a new acronym: Knowledge Mobilization (KMb). The requirement for plain language summaries has given rise to yet another area of research.
Sasha Gaylie at the University of British Columbia explains more about this in her article Clear Language Description. There is a little confusion whether plain language and clear language are the same things. Consequently, there is a move to create an international standard.
The International Plain Language Federation defines plain language as “wording, structure, and design are so clear that readers can easily find what they need”. Easy Read, Easy English or Easy Language, which is for a specific group of readers, is not the same thing. It’s good to see universal design in language as a relatively new frontier in inclusive practice.
Gaylie lists five focus areas for that offer a structure for grouping individual recommendations briefly listed here:
Audience: The benchmark is 8th grade reading level.
Structure: The most important information should appear first.
Design: White space and headers to break up text, and also helps screen readers.
Expression: Use an active voice and avoid jargon.
Evaluation: Peer review by a non-expert for best feedback.
Inclusive descriptions
This is a growing area of language. Words can hurt and harm. We already see how language has changed when we look at old texts. For example the use of “man” and “he” when meaning all humans.
“A term need not be intentionally harmful to cause harm; the act of description is not neutral, and even when using the “plainest” of language, inherent bias affects output.”
Sasha Gaylie’s article concludes with a practical guide based on the five focus pointed mentioned earlier.
From the Editor: Writing in plain language is a skill-set that challenges a writer to think really carefully about what they want the reader to know. It is not about what the writer wants to say. Doing plain language is a process. Writing complex ideas in a straightforward way takes time and effort. And it also makes me think about my relationship to the topic.
Many followers of universal design will have critiqued the entry to Museum M in Leuven, Belgium as dangerous. Unfortunately, a Google image search on “universal design” includes images of this entry as examples of universal design. While this design might be architecturally creative, it is not architecturally inclusive or safe for everyone.
The entry steps to Museum M are mistakenly taken as an example of universal design. Consulting people with disability after construction revealed many concerns for safety.
An article by three Belgian researchers gives both sides of the design story. The classic design ideas and objectives of the architects, and the user experience. The article first discusses disability and the built environment from a justice perspective. They emphasise how architect’s human senses are not the same as everyone else. Museum M is used as a case study to explore the differing values of architects and users with disability.
“The descent before entering Museum M is supposed to symbolise its accessibility and openness to all people. When we mention this openness to Philip, he understands the idea, but for him it does not make the museum more accessible.”
The architect thought it a good idea if visitors didn’t have to separate at the entrance. He could see no problems for wheelchair users by crossing the ramp through the stairs. This design is sometimes called “stramps” With no kerbing to the ramp, wheelchair users would need to be careful not to run off the grade into the steps. Although some wheelchair users might find this workable, it is not the case for people who are blind.
What Charlotte and Philip said
Charlotte is a wheelchair user and Philip has a vision impairment: their experiences are at odds with the grandiose ideas of the architect. Philip understands the idea of the stramps but it does not make the museum more accessible for him. The break in the handrail to accommodate the ramp section means he doesn’t know where the next handrail is.
The colour of the entrance is also causing an obstacle. The white colour when the sun is shining onto the floor it looks like one flat surface. Philip can’t make out the steps and combining it with ramp makes it more confusing. Charlotte isn’t comfortable about entering either because the ramp is not entirely visible for wheelchair users.
Australians are known for their love of beaches and water. Beach accessibility has improved greatly in recent years. Strip matting, specialist water wheelchairs and accessible change facilities have made a significant difference for wheelchair users. But beach access needs constant maintenance.
“…beach access has many more challenges due to the uncontrollable nature of the movement of sand, water and wind… storms [also] play havoc on accessible paths of travel.” Jane Bryce
The latest access consultants association magazine, Insight, is all about beaches, water and access. The lead article by Jane Bryce looks at the damage done by storms and the erosion of once accessible beach access
Derek Mah covers the accessibility of aquatic facilities from an architect’s perspective. Access for swimming pools was first introduced in 2011. But the standard for the public domain (AS1428.1) is inadequate for ramps and stairs in pools. Mah discusses the issues of design and certification of swimming pools and some of the assistive equipment.
Shane Hryhorec provides a wheelchair user perspective. Going to the beach is not just a fun thing, it also enables social inclusion for individuals and families. Shane is the founder of Accessible Beaches Australiawhich has a directory of accessible beaches.
“Going to the beach is a quintessential part of the Australian way of life”, says Accessible Beaches Australia chairperson and founder, Shane Hryhorec.
Italian beach fun
For those wanting to travel there’s an extra feature on the accessible beaches in Italy. Stefano Sghinolfi is an Italian accessible tourism operator. Lots of pictures show great beaches. “To make up for the shortcomings of national policies on accessibility, there are associations and private companies. Hard work has been done by these private groups to make part of the Italian coast accessible to wheelchair users.” It’s worth noting that all accessible beaches in Italy are private.
Technical insights
As usual, Howard Moutrie adds the technical insights and background information. The purpose of this feature is to promote thought and discussion and answer members’ questions. Swimming pools are covered in the National Construction Code when it is part of another building. But there are exceptions. Swimming pools can be part of an apartment complex, an hotel, and a regular back yard. This is where it all gets tricky. Howard works his way through these in the article.
The City of London Street Accessibility Tool is like an educational access audit report. It shows street designers how street features impact on the different needs of pedestrians. The focus is on people with mobility impairments and wheelchair users, which means everyone wins.The tool recognises that there are sometimes competing needs: what’s good for one group might not be good for another. Co-design is the best way to find the trade-offs to prevent unintended exclusion. The tool comes in three parts: two Excel spreadsheets and a PDF downloadable from the City of London website.
Two photos from the “Instructions for Use” PDF document.
Doing the analysis
The PDF document begins with a table of different pedestrian types with and without assistive mobility devices. They cover mobility, sensory and neurodiverse conditions. There are three steps for using the tool.The case study for the tool is London Wall, a street in London. A 500m long section is analysed for accessibility and is split into six sections. Each section has detailed access advice for improvements with photographs overlaid with dimensions and text to illustrate issues.
Down to the detail
The first spreadsheet has detailed dimensions, colours, and placements for elements such as tactiles, street furniture, and kerbs. All the necessary technical detail is here.
What pedestrians said
The second spreadsheet is a route analyser and has a column of photos with user feedback about the issues they see. The feedback sheet highlights the “why” of planning and design. It provides insights for planners and designers in a way that that is missed in 2D drawings.The direct quotes from people with disability provide the necessary insights for planners and designers. However, those responsible doing the actual construction should also have this information. All the access planning and designing goes awry if the “why” isn’t understood by all involved. Here are two quotes from the spreadsheet on route comments:
I feel quite wary. This is an unmarked crossing as far as I can see, I can’t see any wait signs. Somebody has stopped for me I can see a cyclist, I’m now onto some more tactile paving, this is the sort of crossing I am totally unfamiliar with. Person using a white cane
This is all fine but the paving stones are a little even so I’d be looking down and watching my speed so I don’t knock into one. Person using a wheelchair
A page from the London Street Accessibility Tool Ross Atkin Associates and Urban Movement for the City of London Corporation developed The City of London Street Accessibility Tool (CoLSAT).
London’s inclusive design standards
The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) is similar to the Sydney Olympic Park Authority. Both focus on maintaining the benefits of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Sydney claimed the title of “most accessible games ever” and then the title went to London. Inclusive design is a priority in all developments related to the Olympic precinct, and these Standards are designed to assist.
“Venues excelled in their inclusive design and the story could have ended there. However, LLDC embraced this approach and made ‘Championing equalities and inclusion’ one of their four corporate priority themes.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson LLDC Board Member
Front cover of the Standards
Inclusive design is the favoured term in the UK while other countries and the United Nations use universal design. They mean the same thing – creating inclusive societies.
A Standard not a Guide
The Inclusive Design Standardsbegin with all the relevant legislation and standards followed by a page on how to use the document. The standards have four key parts: inclusive neighbourhoods, movement, residential, and public buildings. Each part has two sections – the design intent and the inclusive guidelines. The guidance is just that and design teams can create solutions that achieve the same outcomes.
This is clearly a standards document and not a guide. It has numbered clauses for designers to reference. As such, it is not an accessible document itself. The language and size of text makes for detailed reading. A summary document with the key points would be useful as a starter.
