Imogen Howe writes that wellbeing goes beyond the physical and mental health of an individual. It is a holistic concept of health and wellness. It encompasses social connectedness, belonging and inclusion and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society. Wellbeing is also about feeling valued and respected, and environmental contextual factors such as connection to community and place. She explains wellbeing by design as:
“The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing is well known. But, when it comes to wellbeing, buildings and urban spaces frequently disappoint people with disabilities by being inaccessible, stigmatising, creating the feeling of being out-of-place, a misfit in places you have a fundamental right to be in.” Signs such as the one pictured, say that “we didn’t think about you in our design”.
Exclusion of people with disability because the problem arises from older buildings is no excuse. Howe says building upgrades are essential when considering the barriers beyond access standards. She says that designers must consider psychological and emotional aspects of wellbeing as well. It’s more than just getting into a building.
Howe also says that designers must be respectful of users’ energy and time. People with disability and/or long term health conditions have less energy available to them each day. It takes longer to do basic tasks, so they also have less time to spare. The built environment can whittle away, bit by bit, precious energy and time so there is nothing left for fun things.
The title of the article is Wellbeing for Whom? and published by the Australian Institute of Architects magazine, Architecture Bulletin.
What do you think accessibility means? Does it mean compliance with AS1428.1 or the ability to enter a building and spaces within it? Is it about usability? Even if it means all these things, the word accessibility is too limited to encompass all the considerations for people with disabilities…
Community consultation is a vexed issue when officials and community representatives interpret “consultation” in different ways. A Swedish study found, unsurprisingly, that officials expected a fast consultation process for ready-made projects. On the other hand, employees of disability groups were expecting to be more involved. They were expecting participation and partnership. The consequence is conflict.
Swedish national and local policies introduced universal design concepts to make disability part of human diversity. However, appropriately involving people with disability in decisions is another matter. Image from the article.
It is not uncommon to find unsolvable conflicts in a suburban project where planners clash with unaddressed local problems. But the result should not be a wilful dismissal of citizens’ issues. Participation should reduce the risk of contested or disregarded outcomes. However, disregarding disability issues in project development builds mistrust of local authorities.
The Swedish study examined the perception of consultation with people with disability in three Swedish cities, applying a universal design approach. The paper includes many references to the literature to support their qualitative research.
Consultation
The findings of the go-along study, and participant observation at meetings revealed a complex picture of participation styles. In one situation, the consultation expert referred to the needs of people with disability as “opposing interests”. The consultant treated the workshop as an opportunity for them to “blow off steam”.
Partnership
Disability organisation employees saw themselves as partners with the right to negotiate outcomes. But this did not correspond with their experience. Their involvement was too late in the process, and after procurement requirements were set. Having lived experience is they key point, not whether participants understand accessibility legislation. Indeed, openness and creativity are more important than accessibility expertise.
The municipal project leaders were oriented towards Consultation because they wanted to quickly get ready-made proposals confirmed. Employees of disability organizations collaborated with officials as partners in the administration of and recruitment for workshops. However, they wanted ongoing feedback to influence the result.
These different expectations on the aim of participation entailed misunderstandings. So did unclear roles regarding representativity and the asymmetry of resources and interests. Failure to communicate opportunities for influence and the limited roles given to participants generated feelings of uncertainty and mistrust.
Officials were unsure about the legitimacy of participants, and participants about the conditions for influencing the process. These findings suggest that the aim and role of participation would gain from being clarified in advance. Topics such as previous experiences, policy, constraints, and opportunities for influence should be discussed at pre-workshop stage. Thus, co-creative dialogues might be developed.
Gender neutral toilet facilities are the subject of discussion in academic research, legislation and architectural briefs. Urban planners say any toilet away from home should be informed by the proportion of needs in society. Enter the gender neutral category of amenity as the solution that can best resist bias and discrimination. But maybe it doesn’t.
Nicole Kalms and Laura McVey argue that “the proposed legislative changes for the provision of ‘all gender’, ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘unisex’ toilets operate under an incorrect assumption that gender neutrality will lead to greater inclusion”.
The proposed legislative changes note that one in 500 people in Victoria identify as trans, but fail to note that one in two Victorians are women. Kalms and McVey claim that rather than offering inclusivity, it will further penalise those already disadvantaged in amenity design.
The issue of signage
Repurposing women’s public facilities or accessible toilets as gender-neutral is an ad hoc response to the real issues.
“This will multiply the ad hoc arrangements where a sign and/symbol on an existing ‘female’ or ‘disabled’ toilet provides a ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘all genders’ amenity, leaving the men’s facility intact”. Indeed, it will double men’s toilet options.
The article goes on to discuss different sections of the population including people who are homeless, and women from culturally diverse backgrounds. Public toilets are also places of personal care and of refuge from sexual violence. An important discussion paper which shows how the default to the male toilet is the norm – they remain the same. Women’s toilets have become the “adaptable” quick-fix place for all other groups. But at the cost to whom?
In summary
“We therefore suggest that current reform proposals for inclusivity do not go far enough, and put forward the need for a more ‘radical redesign of public sanitary facilities. Such a radical redesign, we argue, requires a needs based design ethos based on users’ requirements. This approach reiterates the importance of more inclusive design, but does so by considering and prioritising those most significantly and disproportionately impacted and neglected by current design.”
The title of the book chapter is, Commentary on Let Us Pee in The Feminist Legislation Project. An important discussion on how easy it is to exclude people in design, albeit unintentionally. Another reason for engaging in co-design and co-creation processes.
The first Digital Service Standard was created by the UK’s Government in the early 2010s. The aim was to improve the relationship between people and government with easier access to digital services. The original 26 criteria were reduced to 18 to make them more manageable and then to 14. The criteria were mandatory. If any service did not meet them, it would not be hosted on government websites.
Australia’s Digital Transformation Office (DTO) released its own criteria based on those of the UK in 2015. The DTO later became the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) and gradually it was ignored.
The DTA recently released a brand new DSS 2.0 which became mandatory in July 2024. It covers staff-facing services and citizen-facing services with 10 criteria. But the wording has turned a bit fuzzy for a standard.
Standards list things you must do such as, apply certain dimensions. Or things that must be true when tested, such as a bridge being capable of taking a certain weight. The bridge example leaves it open to the designers to be inventive and creative in meeting that criteria.
The new Standard DSS 2.0 has fuzzy criteria such as “understand” and “identify”. Understand, identify and act are not a testable criteria.
But what’s the real problem?
The DSS Standard has a lot of sensible ideas, albeit untestable, but the real problem is that there are several other digital standards that must be applied. The Digital Access Standard, the Digital Inclusion Standard, and the Digital Performance Standard. They each add another 5 criteria, many of which are untestable.
And why does it matter?
Designers might think they are meeting the criteria of “considering diverse user needs”. But how will they know they are? It’s easy to assume and guess diverse user needs.
“In disability, there’s nobody more dangerous than a person with good intentions and no know-how.” Standards have a lot of power so the outcomes must be measurable and achievable.
Standards give users a sense of security with specific and achievable outcomes. If a standard is vague, confusing, and untestable it loses its authority.
Grabrails in the home are considered one of the most stigmatising functional support devices, particularly by older people. Several design attempts have tried colour, wavy shapes, or “hiding” them as bathroom shelving and toilet roll holders. Installation of grabrails, regardless the design, are resisted until there is a major health event or a fall. But what if grabrail design doubled as a piece of artwork?
The two pictures below show a completely different way of designing grabrails. These designs might not be suitable for all users, people who need help with their balance in wet areas might benefit. Perhaps this solution is better than no solution.
The Inclusive Housing Living Lab in Hasselt, Belgium, focuses on research for real-life situations. The pictures above are taken from a conference paper which explains the role of the Living Lab. Research projects focus on universal design solutions with input from users and designers and occupational therapists.
Fitting all showers with grabrails as standard would dissolve the stigma and prevent falls. However, this is unlikely to occur except in public places.
The paper includes a renovation project turning an old building into a rehabilitation centre. Local authorities wanted to keep some of the existing elements such as steps which then required a creative solution.
The aim of the Living Lab is to show that good design can minimise the need for personal assistance. It is locally based and introduces visitors, students and professionals to a universal design approach.
Below are images of “disguised” grabrails: a shower shelf, a soap dish, a toilet roll holder and a towel rail.
Images of Invisia bathroom products.
From the abstract
This paper states the underlying concept and motivation of the design and building process of a Universal Design Living Lab. The UD-lab is located in Belgium and has three main ambitions. They are demonstration, conducting research and offering information on the added values of designing universally. Global real life initiatives are important for driving a general awareness on universal design as ongoing activity.
This conference paper is from the UD2014 conference in Sweden.
The Human Rights Commission has produced a guide on 5 common Myths and Misconceptions about Racism. Each of these is explained further and are listed as:
Misconception that racism is about individual actions and beliefs
The myth of meritocracy
Misconception of not “seeing” race
The myth that “racism is a thing of the past”
Misconceptions about anti-racism
British colonisation has shaped the way we talk about race and racism in Australia and has ongoing impacts. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) guideis one of self-reflection and education. It aims to support and enhance understandings of race, racisim, and anti-racism. It asks us to stop and think about the various opinions, stories and terms used and think critically about the myths and misconceptions.
Many ideas predate colonisation in Australia built upon re-existing ideas of racial hierarchies that classified humans based on physical difference. The result is ongoing structural and systemic racism. These deeply rooted myths prevent productive conversations to address racism.
“Anti-racism involves actively working to challenge racist policies, practices, culture, and ideas. It requires more than being “not racist”. It involves active decisions that seek to combat injustice and promote racial equity. Developing an anti-racism skillset and practice is an important part of promoting a better and more equitable society.
It would be useful to have a briefer document with just the key points, although there is an accessible Word version. Concepts and terminology are explained in detail, and the five myths and misconceptions are challenged, explained and discussed.
The AHRC acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land, sea, waterways, and sky throughout Australia and pays respect to First Nations Elders past and present. Saltwater People designed the guide.
Co-designing with users is gaining momentum and being applied in many different situations. Participatory Action Research is familiar to academics and now the concepts are underpinning collaborative methods in different fields of endeavour. Co-designing organisational change is a good way to bring everyone on board.
Hospitals are large bureaucratic enterprises comprising staff from varied backgrounds and skill sets. Add in the diversity of patients and visitors and we can see the difficulty of pleasing most, let alone all stakeholders.
Organisational change is a complex process that requires all parties to agree to change. To overcome some of this complexity, Australian researchers used arts-based research methods and arts-based knowledge translation. Their paper outlines the steps in the process and includes some of the participants’ drawings. Workshops, photovoice, photography and digital narratives all had a part to play.
From the conclusion
Both the co-design workshop and visual methods provided opportunities to connect people in an honest and respectful dialogue. System change must engage, educate, support and connect people. Transforming a system is really about transforming relationships between people who make up the system.
Too often organisations, groups, and individuals work on the same problem but work in isolation from each other. Bringing people together is the way to create a positive impact for change.
The arts-based design thinking processes provided a visual mechanism to explore creative solutions. It provided a place for clinicians and consumers to connect and discuss the proposed change strategies. The visual methods enabled time for reflection and then new conversations about care practices emerged.
This chapter tells the story of a complex organisational change to a healthcare service. It is about splitting rehabilitation functions across two hospitals in the same region. The design project was to help healthcare providers from both hospitals reach an understanding of the strengths that each hospital provided to its patients. One was a large metropolitan hospital, and the other a small hospital in a rural area.
Arts-based design methods were used. They included workshops, journey maps, and photovoice experiences from both providers and consumers. The team were able to help the rehabilitation service providers see the value of the organisational change and the potential benefits in the new service.
Co-design in healthcare
Health care is a service and like any service, you want the best for your customers. Customer feedback is common with most services, but knowing the problems after the event is not very effective. The first step is setting up a process that is going to get the most useful design decisions. That means co-designing from the very beginning including co-designing the research method.
An inclusive design approach means listening
A Canadian study documents the process of using an inclusive design approach to design the study. As a report of the process the paper necessarily includes many stories from participants. These stories are rich in information not limited by survey or interview formats and questions. It is up to the listener or researcher to guide these experiences into practical solutions.
The methods in this study are applicable to any public service, such as transport or education.
Storytelling and research design
Storytelling often goes beyond describing the immediate barriers and difficulties in using a service to reveal the impact on a person’s life.
“The inclusive design approach to the study was not rigid because inclusive design is about diversity, variability and complexity.”
Design exercises
The study reports on three options for design exercises:
Option One: co-designers talk about any part of the health care service that needs re-design. Then the group imagines a future where the barrier no longer exists.
Option Two: co-designers discuss their own or another’s experience during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Option 3: co-designers use the research centre’s “virtuous tornado” exercise. The virtuous tornado is a diagram with three circles, In the centre is the statement, “Like and Use”. The next ring has the statement “Don’t like or have difficulty using”. The outer ring has the statement “Can’t Use”. See the diagram below.
Figure 1 from the report with the three options for activities
Pedestrians and cyclists sharing space is based on the idea of everyone being socially responsible. It’s expected that whoever is present in the space will politely negotiate the right of way. That’s because there are few, if any traffic controls, barriers or road markings. More recently, shared space has come under scrutiny because some pedestrians avoid such routes. So what are the preferences for shared space design? Researchers in Germany used a video-based survey to find out.
Shared space revolves around integrating different road users into a common physical space. 408 participants evaluated different case designs and considered the placement of street furniture. Image of a street in Frankfurt, Germany.
For some people who do not drive or own a car, a bike is a good way to get around. However, everyone needs to feel safe. Safety is all down to perception and that’s why dedicated lanes for pedestrians, bikes and cars is the optimum.
This paper explores the preferences of pedestrians and cyclists for shared space design. It looks at configurations that emphasise the sense of place, integration, and informal segregation. In an online survey, 408 participants experienced videos of virtual environments with different designs. They were asked to assess various attributes and their influence on the perception of the space and crossing behaviour.
The results indicate that pedestrians and cyclists do favour similar attributes and space configurations. Both find motor vehicles undesirable, but they hold a positive view of the central placement of design elements and protective barriers.
Do Bike Lanes Slow Traffic?
Compared to many other countries, Australia has a low rate of bike riding. Researchers from Swinburne and Melbourne universities decided to check out the issue of cycling infrastructure. That’s because cities that prioritise cycling infrastructure have higher rates of people cycling. But there is community resistance to this infrastructure with comments such as bike lanes slow traffic
The researchers used a modelling technique to find out if retrofitting separate bike lanes into residential streets slowed traffic. When done well, it increased car travel times by 7%. Cycling times increased marginally due to avoiding streets without bike lanes.
Images from the article. Cycle lanes are narrow (less than 0.6 m wide) with no physical separation by a concrete kerb. (left) Kensington and (right) Collins Street Melbourne.
Reduction in vehicle speeds are another key factor, but this alone does not prevent traffic injuries for cyclists. Running into car doors due to poor separation is the reason for most accidents. Safe and separated cycling lanes are good for pedestrians too, especially those who fear shared paths.
The title of the article is, Do Safe Bike Lanes Really Slow Down Cars? A Simulation-Based Approach to Investigate the Effect of Retrofitting Safe Cycling Lanes on Vehicular Traffic. There is much more to this research project to digest.
From the abstract
Cycling is a sustainable transportation mode that provides many health, economic and environmental benefits. Cities with high rates of cycling can better address challenges of densification, and carbon-neutral goals. Participation rates in Australian cities are critically low and declining.
This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. That’s because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.
This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. This is because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.
We investigated the effects on traffic behaviour of retrofitting safe, separate cycling lanes into existing residential streets in a Melbourne suburb. We utilised only the widths available on the existing roadway of these streets.
Travel demand was modelled using travel demand that suits suburban trips to services and shops. We also selectively applied separate cycling lanes to suitable residential streets and varied the effect of lowering speed limits.
Simulations showed at worst case the selective inclusion of safe cycling lanes leads to a 7% increase in the average car travel times. And cyclists only increase their travel distance marginally to avoid streets without dedicated cycling lanes.
Teaching inclusion using awareness raising techniques was thought to be the way to go. And yes it did raise some awareness, but it was rarely translated to their work in real life. This is partly because it is taught as a sideline and not integral to the course from beginning to end. Researchers in the US wondered if going beyond teaching awareness would improve matters.
The research questions were: Did students who learned inclusive design act to make inclusive software? How did inclusivity manifest in student projects, if at all?
The bottom line to this research is that the ways in which inclusion appeared in projects was higher and bias was reduced. There were fewer reports of inclusivity bugs and higher inclusivity ratings. So going beyond teaching awareness worked for this group.
Although this project was based on a computing science program, the implications are positive for other design disciplines. Teaching inclusive design across the curriculum can impact students beyond heightening awareness. It encourages them to act upon this new understanding by designing technology that serves a wider spectrum of society.
Motivation: Many university computer science (CS) programs have begun teaching various types of CS-related societal issues. They use approaches such as ethics, Responsible CS, inclusive design, and more. Although these programs have been able to teach awareness, students often fail to act upon this awareness. To address this problem, University X’s CS program tried an unusual approach. That is, integrating hands-on inclusive design skills in small ways across all four years of the CS major. But did it work? That is, did the students who experienced this change actually build more inclusive technology than students who did not experience it?
Objectives: This paper aims to answer this through addressing two research questions. (RQ1): Did students who learned inclusive design across the curriculum act to create more inclusive software? (RQ2): How did inclusivity (or lack thereof) manifest in students’ projects?
Method: To investigate these RQs, we conducted a case study of 22 term-long CS projects built by 22 teams consisting of a total of 92 3rd- and 4th-year CS students. Half of the student teams had experienced courses that had integrated inclusive design and the other half had not. The inclusive design elements University X taught were those of the GenderMag inclusive design method. So evaluating the students’ term-long projects was done by GenderMag experts—industry-experienced UX and Software professionals with real-world GenderMag experience.
Results: The inclusiveness of students’ projects was higher Post-GenderMag, with fewer reports of inclusivity bugs and higher inclusivity ratings. Experts’ evaluations also revealed the ways in which bias (e.g. bias against risk-averse users) and inclusion (e.g. inclusion of users with diverse information processing styles) appeared in students’ projects.
Do footpath and crossing retrofits actually encourage walking for all people? Are guidelines inclusive of all potential walkers (and wheelers)? Are planners using statistical modelling to guide retrofit decisions. Or are they using the lived experience of pedestrians? New research offers insights into how to improve current guidelines for pedestrians.
Three New Zealand researchers decided to check out the walkability characteristics of crossings to provide insights for retrofits. Then they looked at whether local design guidelines were providing appropriate advice.
•We objectively characterised pedestrian crossings perceived as barriers to walking.
• We compared characteristics with local design guidelines and Healthy Streets.
•Technical documents not specific enough to inform retrofit.
The 56 interview participants were aged 20 to 89 years and living in Auckland. Almost half had some difficulty with either walking, seeing, hearing, or remembering. They reported the attributes that made walking trips difficult or unpleasant, or discouraged them from walking.
Non-signalised crossings were the most frequent barrier mentioned and would fail the Healthy Streets Check assessment. Tight cornering radii, complexity, traffic volumes and speed were also factors in making walking difficult or unpleasant. The authors explain more about this in their article.
Guidelines – how useful are they for inclusive planning?
Guidelines mostly focus on best practice, naming all the aspects that should ideally be in place for a “walkable” environment. However, aspects that could be perceived as barriers are absent from the guidelines. For planners, knowing what to improve first makes for a difficult decision process.
Pedestrian crossings are a key feature both in terms of risk of road trauma and impacts on pedestrian experience. In car-dominated environments, retrofitting existing infrastructure to enable and encourage walking is a challenge. It is unclear what difficulties people experience and whether current design guidelines encompass these.
This study aims to provide a real-world perspective on local design guidelines and the Healthy Streets metrics. We use objective measures of the built environment and users’ perceptions of unfeasibility or difficulty.
Interview participants considered non-signalised crossing points as barriers to access. The Healthy Streets metrics are not set up to enable cities to easily identify these difficult crossings.
These findings provide information needed to improve local guidelines and Healthy Streets metrics to enable them to support proactive retrofit.
