Some people think that people who are blind can’t use websites or smartphones because they can’t see the screen. This is not true of course because they use screen reader software to read out the content of the webpage. However, even on a reasonably accessible website, cookie banners are barriers to access to the very first page.
Many websites have accessible features, but they are not necessarily linked up. The popup cookie banner can prevent some users from accessing the website entirely.
Clive Loseby’s Tedx talk explains that despite legislation for online accessibility, very few websites meet basic access standards. You can check your easily by doing what people with low vision and people with screen readers do. They use the keyboard and not the mouse. Go to your home page and use the Tab key. Does it progress through the menu or navigation tabs?
It is a legal requirement in most countries to have accessible websites – the guidelines and standards have been around for more than 20 years. What is taking so long? Clive Loseby explains basics and how every organisation or business is missing out on customers.
Some websites use popup banners to advertise something and others use scrolling images as well. These have a similar effect to the cookie banners.
A reminder about attitude
Some of the responses to the talk in the comments section are not positive and in some cases almost abusive. While all YouTube videos get their share of negatives, it is still a reminder that ableism is alive and well.
The Post Pandemic Public Spaces documentary series is about the future of our public spaces and the influence of the pandemic. The documentary was produced as part of the the work of the Urbanism faculty at TU Delft.
Eight researchers discuss their views on the future of our public spaces in a series of interviews. The researchers walk the streets as they describe the lack of accessibility and unequal access to public space. The video is subtitled in English.
This video focuses on mobility. Other videos focus on behaviour, challenges, and the final one concludes the discussion.
We can all agree that the COVID 19 crisis has affected everyday life. It has forced inhabitants to change their routines and thus the use of public spaces and amenities.
From the abstract
The fourth episode of the series presents the topic ‘Inequality’. In line with last episode, it is important to remember how mobility relates to (in)equality. The measurements taken during COVID-19 outbreak, such as social distancing and staying home, has shown that not everyone has or can have the same pattern, and/or is able to have equal patterns.
Public spaces in different neighbourhoods have different qualities. The pandemic has shown that not everyone lives under the same conditions and has equal access to public spaces. Distances to recreational (green) spaces can differ greatly, there is unequal safety along the routes. Places to sit and stay and relax are also not equal.
Public space is subject to power structures and the distribution of resources, and are unequal almost by definition, and consequently access isn’t available for everyone.
Urban design and the wellbeing of older adults
Keeping mobile and active whether walking, riding or using a mobility device, is essential for staying connected and maintaining good mental health. The effect of poorly designed and maintained environments has a negative effect on the mental wellbeing of older adults. Depressive symptoms are more likely to develop if an incaccessible environment prevents getting out and about.
Gillepsie, LeVasseur, and Michael conclude their findings “support public policy to promote neighbourhoods with diverse amenities as a means to support mental health in older adults”.
The lack of diverse amenities within the neighbourhood was associated with depression among those older adults with greater mobility. Among those older adults with low mobility, we observed no difference in depression by amenity diversity.
Ergonomists and engineers are considering ways to design autonomous vehicles to include a diversity of users. That includes people with disability and impairments. However, it’s not just a case of adding universal design principles into the design process. Designing an inclusive autonomous vehicle requires attention to many other factors. It’s an interdisciplinary design process.
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) present an opportunity for redefining the standard ergonomic design approaches especially when designing for people with disability and impairments.
Researchers in Europe have come up with a way to integrate relevant design data to ensure designs meet standards and the diversity of users. Overall user perception is linked to user perception and satisfaction and this is where ergonomics come into play. The paper is very technical and mainly of interest to engineers and ergonomists. The researchers claim that this platform will turn attention to “human-centric” design rather than engineering design.
For those who advocate for inclusive vehicle design, it shows the complexity designers have to deal with. However, it is good to see this important issue addressed at this early stage of future mass production.
Passenger comfort in vehicles is a complex, human-centric segment of the vehicle interior design process. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) present an opportunity for redefining standard design approaches. There are options for improved ergonomics and meeting the needs of a wide range of users, including persons with impairments.
However, the complexity of incorporating universal design principles together with all other interdisciplinary information in the development process requires a suitable method to systematize the data and simplify their use.
This paper proposes a platform for inclusive autonomous vehicle interior design (IAVID) which can be used as a tool to support the creation of ergonomic and inclusive AV interiors. The proposed IAVID platform is based on model-based systems engineering. It is intended for organizing and updating all relevant interdisciplinary information to input in the AV interior development. By doing so, the interdisciplinary collaboration among vehicle development teams is strengthened.
On the road with autonomous vehicles
What will the future of transport look like post COVID-19 pandemic and what will it mean for autonomous vehicles? For people who don’t or can’t drive, autonomous vehicles seem a wonderful invention. But will the designs and technology be inclusive?
It’s not that no-one is thinking about access and inclusion – they are. But it’s not all about the technology. Some of the problems are related to the way vehicles connect with the built environment. Wheelchair accessible features, such as a ramp, can be rendered unsafe on steep inclines. If the wheelchair is not locked down, bumps in the road could cause the chair to tip or fall.
Some riders will need specific assistive technologies for eye tracking, gesture recognition, and voice control. These would give people with tactile, mobility, and hearing impairments a sense of control without the need to make physical contact. Other practical challenges are around pick up and drop-off, and loading and unloading groceries. Some people will still require human assistance at certain points of the journey.
For a more academic study and design details see, Accessible Personal Transportation for People with Disabilities Using Autonomous Vehicles. They include the principles of universal design in the text and conclude with a list of recommendations.
The motoring body, NRMA, predicted in 2017 that autonomous vehicles will be rolling out in significant numbers by 2020. Their report on the Future of Car Ownershipshows the step by step progress. You can also get a summary of the report in an infographic.
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are closer to becoming a reality in changing the landscape of commercial and personal transportation. The launch of these vehicles comes with the promise of improved road safety, reduced traffic fatalities, and enhanced mobility. However, there are questions as to whether the design of AVs will meet the needs of everyone, including people with disabilities and older adults.
We argue that there exists no conceptual model that guides the inclusive design of autonomous vehicles to benefit all intended users. This paper proposes such a model, called the User Transportation-Activity Technology (UTT) model, which supports the inclusive design of AVs. We present a review of current models of assistive technology design and their drawbacks followed by an introduction of the UTT model and its application in AV design.
This paper may benefit researchers, designers, and developers of autonomous vehicles interested in addressing accessible design issues in such vehicles.
Universal design is a design thinking process so a universal design standard is a contradiction in terms. Standards are fixed where universal design is a continuous improvement process. However, where designers cannot grasp the concept of an inclusive thinking process, a set of design directions is needed. Hence a new European universal design standard for products, goods and services.
The standard sets out requirements and recommendations for extending the customer base for products and services. It’s for organisations that design and manufacture products and/or provide services. The aim is to ensure products and services are available to the widest range of users possible.
Diverse user needs, characteristics, capabilities and preferences area all covered. It is based on processes of user involvement and building on accessibility knowledge. The standard can also be used for complying with legislation and to advance corporate social responsibility.
The standard was developed by Ireland’s National Disability Authority that houses the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. The document has the title “design for all” which is a recognised European term, but notes that universal design, barrier-free-design and transgenerational design are the same thing.
Design for All – Accessibility following a Design for All approach in products, goods and services – Extending the range of users can be purchased from the standards authority.
There is a media release explaining a little more. The regular complaint about standards is the cost of purchase and could be a reason why they are ignored.
Learning about standards
It is assumed that students in design disciplines, such as engineering, automatically learn about standards and how they are developed. According to an article by Jenny Darzentas this is not the case. The way standards are developed and written makes them difficult to understand and apply. Too much emphasis is placed on “learning on the job”.
Darzentas says that education about standards in universal design courses would be beneficial. In Japan, Korea and China this is included, but not in Europe and North America.
Access to standards documents is not usually discussed as a barrier to accessibility and universal design. However, people not only need easy access the documents, but also the information should be easy to access. Is this an argument for standards to follow the concepts of universal design?
Standardisation education is rarely taught to students in the design disciplines in academic settings, and consequently there is not much evidence about best practices. This paper examines this situation, and elaborates on some of the possible reasons for this situation. Further, it gives an example of how students may be instructed and encouraged to further their interests in standards and the standardization-making process as a means for increasing Universal Design in practice.
How long can older people stay put in their homes? The answer rests on two things: home design and easy access to support services. Retaining a sense of connection to community is another important element which is why the quest to stay put is so strong. And of course, staying put also reduces the stress on the welfare budget. But are there alternative models of housing that can support older people in their later years? Three Nordic housing researchers found some.
Older people aren’t all the same. One thing they do share in common – they want to maintain their autonomy and preferences.
Nordic countries have a reputation for providing strong social and welfare supports for their citizens. But population ageing is stretching the limits of these policies. The researchers reviewed the current situation in Nordic countries to identify issues and potential solutions. Using case studies they show how older people can live independently and inter-dependently.
The application of universal design across Nordic housing is enabling people to stay home longer. However, the case studies showed that loneliness is a growing challenge. Consequently, defining an age-friendly environment is much more than a step-free entry.
The challenge is to find solutions that promote activity, participation and a feeling of safety. Consequently, we need a joined up approach to housing and neighbourhood design. That is, apply universal design to everything. Then it will be good for everyone.
The way housing and urban environments are designed influences opportunities for informal social contact. Good examples are usually in designated specific older age communities. So the knowledge is there, it’s just assumed it’s only needed for older people.
Older people aren’t all the same
Too often it’s assumed that older people all need the same things. They don’t – they are as diverse as the general population. They have different lifestyles and want different housing choices. The one thing they share in common is wanting to maintain autonomy and preferences, especially as they become more frail.
The title of the article is Nordic approaches to housing and ageing – Current concepts and future needs. The article is relatively easy to read with case studies that show a variety of solutions, some of which are communal. The solutions enable older people to continue being part of their neighbourhood in different ways.
From the abstract
The Nordic countries have a reputation for having both universal welfare systems and high housing standards. However, the demographic development and ageing in place policies bring challenges to the present housing and care services for the older population. During the last decades, there has been a significant decrease in the coverage of care for older people. This is related to the increase of older people as well as challenges related to the availability of the workforce and raising care costs.
The objective of the comparative descriptive analyses is to point out the challenges and future possibilities for housing. This is illustrated by some new cases all of them showing solutions that enable older people to continue being a part of city life in their own neighbourhoods. They also show a variety of solutions that at the same time gives possibilities to live independently and live interdependent in different kind of co-housing and neighbourhoods.
The Victorian Government has updated their universal design policy which applies to the whole of government. Previously it sat within the health and building department. The policy is not just an empty statement – it has actions embedded. These actions begin with the procurement process for built environment projects.
Universal design is a design philosophy that ensures products, buildings, environments, programs and experiences are innately accessible to as many people as possible regardless of age, disability, background or any other differentiating factors”
Victorian Government
The policy is structured around the classic 7 Principles of Universal Design. The aim is for all Government departments and agencies to apply the principles to all stages of the project from the project proposal to the implementation and operation of the project. Specifically:
Undertake user engagement and co-design processes
Incorporate universal design principles into procurement and function briefs
Incorporate universal design principles into design standards
The summary document provides a detailed explanation of how each of the 7 principles might be applied.
The main document has more detail including how to apply universal design across the lifecycle of a project and co-design methods. The 7 Principles of Universal Design are expanded to include both good and poor examples of design outcomes. In short – what to do and what not to do.
Both documents are in Word format for easy access for all. This is also a good example of getting the message across with as few words as possible – another universal design feature.
The Victorian Government has been leading the way on universal design for some time. Other states could benefit from following their lead. See also Victoria’sHealth and Building Authority policy as well.
Inclusive Victoria – the Plan
The Victorian State Disability Plan has a great introduction that includes language and terminology. It acknowledges there is no one right, or universal way to conceptualise disability. That’s because people perceive disability in culturally specific ways.
Some people are proud to identify themselves as disabled, whereas others don’t want their disability to define them. Similarly, many autistic and neurodivergent people don’t see autism as a disability. They just see autism at a different way of interacting with the world. The State Disability Plan 2022-2026 is titled,Inclusive Victoria.
Victoria’s Autism Plan
The Victoria’s Autism Plan builds on their Absolutely everyone: state disability plan. It incorporates commitments to remove specific barriers faced by people in the autistic community. The plan is based on feedback from a parliamentary inquiry into the needs of autistic people and their families. Building helpful attitudes toward autistic people is a key element of Victoria’s Autism Plan.
The document begins with personal stories, which is pleasing to see because they are more revealing than statistics or diagnoses. It sets the tone for the rest of the document and acknowledges additional barriers faced by the autistic community.
A note on language
The term Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is no longer the preferred term. Language is influential in changing community attitudes so choosing the right terms is important. Individuals and advocacy bodies were asked which term they thought should be used in the plan. There was general agreement that the term “autistic people” should be used. An important point – ask people what terms they prefer.
Key points in the plan
Specific barriers included:
lack of community understanding
accessing education that meets their needs
exclusion from employment opportunities
limited access to supports and services
additional barriers to inclusion for autistic people with intersecting identities
There are four ways to access the plan on the website: Full version in PDF, Easy English Version in PDF, a text version in Word, and an Auslan summary. Or you can download the full PDF version, Victorian Autism Plan.
What does universal design mean in the 21st century? Universal design concepts have evolved from barrier-free design for wheelchair users to inclusion for all people. Diversity, equity and inclusion are the key words now. But how many designers have moved with the times and how many think they are access standards?
How much do interior designers understand about universal design? In the context of designer education, this is an important question. So what do interior design educators understand universal design to be? A study from the State University of New York found there was a good general understanding. However, compliance to access standards was also thought to be universal design.
Researcher, Eric Dolph, provides an historical context to show how the definition of universal design has evolved from designer responsibility to a values-based and human centred approach to design. That is, from the design of things, to a design process.
Designers’ thoughts on universal design
In his study, Dolph gave four definitions of universal design to interior design educators. The aim was to see which ones were understood as universal design. The definitions were:
1. Inclusive design is socially focused and grounded in democratic values of non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and personal empowerment. (Tauke 2008)
2. The design of interior and exterior environments to meet prescribed requirements for people with disabilities. (United States Department of Justice, 2010)
3. The design of products, information, environments, and systems to be usable to the greatest extend possible by people of all ages and abilities. (Mace et al., 1991)
4. A design process that enables and empowers a diverse population by improving human performance, heath and wellness, and social participation. (Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012)
Definition 2 was a foil as it is a statement about minimum access rather than universal design. It generated a mixed response with educators recognising the definition as universal design.
Definition 3 was the most recognised. Given this is the most quoted definition in the literature and in guidelines, the result is not surprising.
A review of scholarly work indicates a shift in the definition of universal design. Originally, the focus was placed on physical access to the built environment. This has developed to a more contemporary vision that addresses issues of social justice. This has significant implications for those teaching universal design.
In 2018, educators teaching in interior design programs were surveyed about the infusion of universal design content within their curricula.
Responses revealed a generally high level of understanding regarding the definition of universal design. This article presents the survey results of interior design educators’ perceptions of the four definitions.
Historical context of universal design
The concepts of inclusive design and universal design are often presented from a disability perspective. However, the concepts have evolved in the last 50 years to embrace the breadth of human diversity. For those new to the concepts, an historical context is helpful in understanding inclusive design in the 2020s.
A recent paper takes a “design for disability” approach to the history of inclusive design. It also claims there is little written on this topic. This might be the case in academia, but much has been written elsewhere. The authors present a timeline for the evolution of inclusive design, but it’s purpose is not entirely clear.
For the record, universal design and inclusive design have the same goal – they are not different ideas. Nevertheless, they do have their roots in different places.
This is one of many papers still talking about the concept itself but this will not aid implementation in the real world. While we are looking at history, and arguing over terminology, we are not looking at those who have the power to include.
Key point
The interconnectedness of historical events means there is no one fixed starting point. Instead it is a process still going on today. The idea of co-design is introduced, but whether we need more research is a moot point. But we could do with research into co-design and action-based learning in this context.
Anyone interested in the field of universal design and inclusive practice will find the article interesting. It discusses the evolution of concepts and narratives. The article comes from the UK hence the use of the term “inclusive” design.
Editor’s comment: Do we have to keep talking and mulling intellectually over this word or that, or this narrative or that? We need research into why we don’t have inclusive designs throughout society. Navel-gazing the issue is not spreading the word. We already have enough research on body shapes and sizes and cognitive and sensory conditions, for example.
Does the design of parliament buildings affect democracy? An interesting question. It’s often said that the design of our environment affects our behaviours. So would that apply to houses of parliament as well?
In US politics we hear talk of ‘reaching across the aisle’. What if there was no aisle and everyone sat in a circle? We know that spatial design affects mood and communication. We design hospitals to promote healing and airports to minimise stress. Research by an architecture firm in Amsterdam took a look at the links between architecture and the political process.
Architecture firm XML examined as many of the 193 United Nations member states as they could and visited 15. Classroom style, horseshoes, opposing benches and semi-circles were most typical. The XML website has floor plans and 360 degree views as a preface to the book. Seems Bangladesh has a good parliament building model (floorplan pictured).
Once built, parliaments are locked in time, whereas political systems respond to a changing world. It is necessary to rethink our models for collective decision-making but it seems to be incredibly difficult. Architecture can be one of the ways to work and experiment with it.” There is a systematic lack of innovation in the spaces used by our elected leaders.
Some interesting points and 360 degree viewsof several buildings in the FastCompany article if you have access. The title of the article is, The Subtle Way Government Architecture Shapes Governments Themselves.
For anyone who doubts the influence the housing industry has on government, an article in The Fifth Estate spells it out clearly. The article is in the context of the dumping a new planning policy that would have delivered many benefits to the people of New South Wales. It also indicates why NSW has refused to adopt the access features in the National Construction Code. It’s not about economic arguments, it’s about who has the last word.
An independent economic cost benefit analysis concluded benefits to society would be $1.40 for every dollar spent.
The NSW Greens eventually forced the NSW Government to release documents related to their dumping of their long awaited planning policy. It was during a lunch meeting with developers that the Minister for Planning agreed not to progress the new planning policy. And unlike other ministerial speeches, this speech was kept secret. The eventual release of this speech brought forth many other documents.
…it was apparent that the Benefit Cost analysis concluded benefits derived by the society and community to be $1.40 for every dollar spent by the developer! But the dollar is being spent by the developer!! What benefit do they get for expenditure of this money?”
Urban Taskforce CEO Tom Forrest in The Fifth Estate
The documents
The Fifth Estate has published the letters and emailsbetween the Minister and developers. It makes for interesting reading. The developers’ argument is that they get nothing for these changes while the community gains. This, of course, is debatable. Regardless, any additional developer costs are passed on to consumers so it is difficult to understand this argument.
The documents reveal the close relationship between industry and NSW Government and help explain other decisions. The NSW Government has flatly refused to adopt recent changes to the National Construction Code for housing. These changes are based on the Silver level of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines. They are basic access features that would benefit everyone especially people with reduced mobility. However, other states and territories are ready to adopt these changes. Where will that leave developers in NSW? More importantly, where will it leave householders?
If you are interested in the whole story The Fifth Estate has laid it out in a simple story. The title is, “When people notice what we have done” – documents expose how developers killed the NSW Design and Place SEPP.
A group of researchers in Queensland have developed a liveability framework for social and affordable housing. They interviewed key stakeholders from industry and government who make decisions about housing and housing policy. But will it work? With significant industry resistance to regulation changes, it will take more than an academic exercise to improve matters.
Researchers tested the elements of the draft framework by interviewing stakeholders. They claim the framework has the potential to drive the adoption of better outcomes for whole of life solutions.
The five elements of the draft framework are:
Liveability – place based and community focused
Accessibility – person centres and community focused
Social, environmental and economic value – building the value equation
Regulatory and policy environment
Improving adoption
The case study used for testing the framework was based on an existing medium density development with access to transport and services. Twelve representatives from community housing, state government, advocates and industry associations were participants in the study.
The social and affordable housing sector is a very small percentage of housing in Australia. The key issue is to gain adoption in stand-alone homes in master-planned sites which is 70% of all housing.
Editor’s comment: The framework is specific to social and affordable higher density housing, but offers nothing new to the this field of work. Similar frameworks attempt the same thing – trying to find a way to encourage implementation. Frameworks are clearly not the answer. This is a policy issue and not a design issue. Good designers are able to design out the problems, including cost, or at least design around them.
From the abstract
Ensuring liveability and accessibility in medium to high density urban housing and precincts is critical to maximise investment and minimise future risks to our community. This research investigates and develops our understanding of liveable and accessible social and affordable housing, with a focus on medium- and high-density urban precincts. The paper presents the findings of a case study undertaken in the Green Square Close precinct in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane.
Findings are derived from a literature review and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders from the housing industry and government. The results inform a liveability framework for social and affordable medium to high density housing utilising five key elements.
These elements include; 1) Liveability – place-based and community focused, 2) Accessibility – person centred and community focused, 3) Value equation – cost benefit, 4) Regulatory and policy environment and 5) Adoption and overcoming barriers.
The liveability framework also establishes sub-elements across these five elements to improve understanding of whole of life needs. The development of a liveability framework for social and affordable medium and high-density housing presents opportunities for decision making in the co-creation of, and investment in this critically needed housing.