Everything seems more difficult when life is spiralling out of control. And when you can’t understand the forms and documents people are asking you to read, it gets so much harder. Going to court to sort things out is very stressful and even more so if you don’t understand what’s going on. A new website called The Bumpy Roadwas developed with and for parents with intellectual disability. There are 32 fact sheets on interacting with NSW Community Services and the court system. They cover child protection, going to court, meeting with a lawyer, the role of an advocate and tips from other parents. Information is in Easy English and video format.Child Protection is a companion document. Much of the content will apply to other states. Women With Disability Australia website hosts many Easy English publications. If you scroll down you will find Auslan videos among others. Scroll further and there are documents in Kriol, Torres Straight Islander Creole, and Warumungu.Your Human Rights Toolkit is a bundle of four documents in Easy English.Easy Read UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesis also a good resource for getting a grasp of this long complicated document.Editor’s comment: I’d like to see Easy Read and Easy English standard for all organisations . Universally designed documents make so much sense for everyone. It gives an opportunity to get the key points and before looking at a more complex document.
Transportation’s latest buzz-word is “new mobility”. The focus of transportation has moved from infrastructure to people getting out and about. That is, a move from what it is to what it does. Our mobility, whether walking or riding, is key to everything else in our lives. Transportation connects us to people and places. The impending changes to the way transport services will be delivered in the future is the topic of a new strategy document.
The Smart Cities Council released a transportation strategy, Mobility Now: Connecting Communities, Smarter, Sooner, Safer. We are on the cusp of major change with electric and automated vehicles. But this change will offer little to our sustainability and inclusion goals if the only thing that changes is the type of car we are likely to buy.
The strategy outlines steps including redesigning the urban environment, introducing more accessible mobility, and creating an incentive regime. Of particular concern is solving the problem of “first and last mile” options.
You can read an overview of the strategy and also download the full document. It is a call to action for a coordinated approach across government, the private sector and the community.
Signing up to a United Nations (UN) convention isn’t just a feel-good affair. It actually brings obligations. That means reporting on a regular basis to the relevant UN committee. In Australia, the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department is responsible for government reports on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But it isn’t all up to the government: people with disability must be involved. Their reports are known as “Civil Society Shadow Reports”. This is where the story gets interesting when it comes to universal design in housing.
Margaret Ward’s paper, Universal design in housing: Reporting on Australia’s obligations to the UNCRPD, traces the reporting history specifically relating to housing. She writes that the Commonwealth Government has avoided action by doing nothing. Further, it has not adequately reported on this failure to act. But the story does not end here.
This peer reviewed paper was written for the UD2020 Conference that was to be held May 2020, which is now to be held May 2021. It is published on the Griffith University publications website where you can find other papers for the conference.
Abridged abstract:
The UNCRPD obliges Australia to embrace the concept of universal design as a guide for its activities. The UNCRPD triggered significant changes in the last decade directed by the 2010-2020 National Disability Strategy. This paper reviews Australia’s national and international reports on these obligations over the last decade. Both the Australian government and the housing industry largely disregarded the National Dialogue agreement, and misrepresented the progress made in achieving accessibility within the housing stock. The question remains whether a net benefit to society will be found to be of greater priority than the self-interests of the private housing sector and the political vagaries of government. Again, it will take the voice of people with lived experience and those who represent them to make the argument.
The Provision of Visitable Housing in Australia
Margaret Ward and Jill Franzinspected eleven new dwellings in the Brisbane area. They found that none of the dwellings were visitable.
When providing the eight features for visitability, the interviewees identified two themes for non-compliance. They were “lack of thought” and “otherness”. There were three themes for compliance: “fashion”, “requirement’ and “good practice”.
Although all dwellings provided some features, no dwelling provided a coherent path of travel necessary to make a dwelling visitable. Some examples of this incoherence were: a step-free driveway which led to a step at the door; a wide front door which led to a narrow corridor; and a narrow internal doorway which did not allow entry of a wheel-chair to a spacious bathroom. The provision of these access features separately and severally did not provide visitability as an outcome in any of the dwellings.
Australians love sport and embrace all athletes including para athletes. But how do they get a start if clubs don’t give them a go? The Hills Athletics Academy has found how to adjust its coaching program to suit individual athletes so that they can achieve their best. Athletics clubs can be inclusive.A video featuring para-athlete Summer Giddings and her coach Matt Rawlings shows how it can be done. Matt makes this comment, “I just treated her like a normal person – which at the end of the day – she is a normal person.” He says the experience helps him as a coach as well. Summer says, “It’s not hard for clubs to be inclusive.”There is another videoin the series showing how football brings together people from different cultural backgrounds.
Observations during the 2011 Tsunami disaster in Japan showed that the colour of signage matters a lot. A short research paper outlines the colours and colour combinations that are easily seen and interpreted quickly by people who have one of the colour blindness conditions. The result is colour combinations for everyone.
The results of this study and other colour studies are reflected in the Japanese standards for the paint, printing and design industries. The colour scheme-set contains 20 colours and is divided into groups depending on whether things are small scale or large scale. Bright pink turned out to be a colour for large signage. For more on the colours go to the Open Journal of Social Science and download the five page article, “Color Barrier Free Displays in Disaster Situations”.
It would seem that green spaces are only part of the story when it comes to urban design and health. Beautiful buildings also rate highly according to a study in the UK. However, beautiful landscapes need to be enjoyed by the whole population. But we still have architects thinking of children, disability inclusion, and ageing as a ‘tacked on’ afterthought or special add-on feature. Architecture and health go together.
Obvious ramps and rails detract from the look of the building for everyone. People who need them don’t like the look either. Beauty is lost when a place excludes and is inaccessible.
The Sourceable article by Steve Hansenexplains how beautiful architecture positively affects health. Based on research findings, green space did not always gain top spot with residents in urban areas. Being green does not necessarily make it “scenic”. The research involved participants viewing photographs of open space and buildings and rating them as scenic or un-scenic. The conclusion is that “scenic-ness” is more important to health than just being green.
Architecture built to heal
Hospitals and and health facilities are supposed to make us well, but are they designed with healing in mind? Michael Murphy’s TED talk critiques the design of spaces for healing. He asks, “if hospitals are making people sicker, where are the architects and designers to help us build and design hospitals that allow us to heal?” Michael’s talk begins with how his father’s illness caused him to study architecture.
Watch the 15 minute video in the link below. A transcript is also available:
Acrylic screens have appeared at almost every reception desk in response to covid-safe requirements. But without related hearing augmentation installed, it makes it harder to hear each other. If people are wearing masks as well, this makes it worse.
We are familiar with screens at ticket offices, such as train stations, where hearing augmentation systems are mandatory. An article by Bruce Bromley explains how these new reception desk screens contravene the building code if they don’t have hearing augmentation. When businesses installed new screen, few, if any, thought about the communication problems they would cause. And if they did, they perhaps thought we could all live with it. We need respond to this issue because being covid-safe looks like being a new normal.
Any service or business that recently installed an acrylic screen at reception should look at finding a hearing augmentation system. It will benefit the receptionist and the customer. Plug and play solutions are available where there is a microphone and speaker on both sides of the screen. I suspect that these screens will not disappear even if and when covid does. It’s all part of adjusting to the “new normal”.
Editor’s comment: Sometimes I find myself or the receptionist ducking around the screen to hear and to be heard. So the screens only work some of the time.
The design of the built environment can make or break a successful transportation system. Transport for NSW and the state government architect have updated their guide to movement and place to aid practitioners. The guide aims to change some established ways of working so that we get better places and better outcomes. It outlines:
a collaborative method for practitioners, stakeholders, and the community
shared responsibility and a shared language to support collaboration
a process for implementing this approach in decisions and project types
criteria for measuring and evaluating movement and place now and in future projects
The Practitioner’s Guide to Movement and Place has three main sections. The introduction to the concept and implementing a place based approach cover the practicalities. The third section is more about understanding why this approach is important. The guide is necessarily technical in places and has a reference list at the end.Established working practices and standards are likely to change, according to the guide. It is asking professionals to think differently about their role in creating successful places. The toolkit includes separate sections: Aligning Movement and Place.Evaluators’ Guide to Movement and PlacePractice notes and case studiesEditor’s Note: I couldn’t find a mention of accessibility and inclusion. I assume that practitioners will make this part of the process, but that means it will likely rely on existing standards. Aboriginal custodians get a mention. And the movement and place appears to be more about infrastructure and budgets than people
When it comes to accessibility in the built environment, wheelchair users get the most attention. Partly because the access icon looks like a wheelchair user, and partly because built environment standards are based around them. But what about users of other mobility devices? A long ramp might be no problem for a powered wheelchair user. However, walking a long ramp with a wheelie walker, or pushing a wheelchair is another matter. Mobility scooter users are another group often left out of design considerations. That’s just one issue raised in an articleprepared for the UD2021 conference.The article is titled, Mobility Scooters in the Wild: Users resilience and innovation. It is based on qualitative research. The users’ experiences are illuminating for urban planners and public works staff. It is literally where the rubber meets the road. Published online by Griffith University.The article concludes that thoughtful attention to the planning, design and maintenance of places and spaces could minimise current obstacles to using powered mobility devices. These devices are also a low carbon transport option, but if the built environment poses barriers, it will be back to he private car or taxi. Pedestrians on Wheels: A new paradigmis a related topic.
From the abstract
Recent research in Australia on powered mobility device users highlights that the built environment does not cater for their inclusion. In this paper, we examine how users are co-producing urban design is performed “out in the wild”. Electric powered mobility devices face similar legislative and regulatory issues to e-scooters and other niche innovations. The impact of climate change on energy systems is creating momentum for renewable power and smart systems. This will impact decisions and policies around electrified private and public transport infrastructure. It is important that powered mobility devices are not overlooked in planning for inter-modal electrified transport. National and international efforts to achieve safer and more sustainable “car free” cities need to include design for powered mobility device users. This could potentially provide spaces for greater inclusivity and social integration of powered mobility device users through the design of public and private spaces. An ageing population will encourage demand for technologies and accompanying infrastructure to facilitate mobility. Given the nexus of legality, energy, sustainability and ageing, it positions this paper’s focus as an integral linchpin to critically informed and inclusive urban design.
The academic debate about nuanced differences between universal design and inclusive design continue. But to what purpose? Nevertheless, it is useful to know where this began and why it continues. Some terms come from human rights legislation (accessibility), some from policy (ageing in place), and some from an individual perspective (person-environment fit). But are they rivals, and if so, rivals for what?
“We have defined Inclusive Design as: design that considers the full range of human diversity with respect to ability, language, culture, gender, age and other forms of human difference.”
Is this not the same as universal design? It all depends on your perspective and whether you care about semantics or just getting the job done.
International Standards
The International Standards Organisation (ISO) references CEN/CLC/JTC-12 – Design for All. It includes inclusive thinking in the statement as part of a universal design approach:
“To develop and maintain product, service, and process standards for accessibility through the Design for All or Universal Design approach. This includes the integration into the organisational processes. This approach means design for human diversity, inclusion, and equality. It aims for the widest range of users of products and services.”
Design for All is the European translatable expression of universal design.
Universal design vs inclusive design
Professor Jutta Treviranus has a particular view about the differences. She founded the Inclusive Design Research Centre in 1993 in Canada. It was previously known as the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. The Center for Universal Design was also established in North Carolina around this time. Due to its origins in adaptive technology, the emphasis began with information and communication technology.
“While Universal Design is about creating a common design that works for everyone, we have the freedom to create a design system that can adapt, morph, or stretch to address each design need presented by each individual.”
They agree that the goals are the same – inclusion. However, they say the context is different because they come from different origins. Universal design from the built environment, and inclusive design from digital technology. They also claim that universal design is about people with disabilities and that the design methods are different. That is debatable.
Followers of universal design would no doubt take issue with phrases such as “one size fits all” and that it seeks only one solution to creating inclusion. The Center for Universal Design chose the term “universal” because they could see that all people could benefit from designs that included people with disability.
Academia continues to discuss nuances when there is so much real work to be done. We need more research on finding out why we still don’t have more inclusive/universal design in practice.
Are universal design and inclusive design rivals?
Harding, in his dense academic paper, appears to base his argument on universal design being about the “widest range of users”, whereas inclusive design is about “offering everyone access”. He then goes on to claim that universal design is “first generation” and inclusive design is “next generation”. Co-design is next generation.
Using a study of transportation in UK, Harding proposes that the “rivalry” between UD and ID hasn’t helped the cause for inclusion. The barriers to inclusion are far more complex than terminology. However, terminology is very important to academics if they want to compare their work.
Whether you use universal or inclusive, the aim is to cater to diversity, and that includes diverse ways of explaining universal/inclusive design for an inclusive world. Most academics use the terms interchangeably and include “Design for All”.
The title of the paper is, Agent based modelling to probe inclusve transport building design in practice. John Harding is based in the UK where they have stuck by the “inclusive design” term throughout, whereas Europe has favoured Design for All, and most other countries have followed the UN Convention and use universal design. Most academics recognise the convergence of concepts rather than rivalry.
The chart below provides an overview of the relationship between inclusive design elements. Universal design is no longer embedded solely in the built environment and followers would see the elements as common to both. However, the 8 Goals of Universal Design are probably more practical and instructive for practitioners.
Everything seems more difficult when life is spiralling out of control. And when you can’t understand the forms and documents people are asking you to read, it gets so much harder. Going to court to sort things out is very stressful and even more so if you don’t understand what’s going on.
A new website called The Bumpy Road was developed with and for parents with intellectual disability. There are 32 fact sheets on interacting with NSW Community Services and the court system. They cover child protection, going to court, meeting with a lawyer, the role of an advocate and tips from other parents. Information is in Easy English and video format. Child Protection is a companion document. Much of the content will apply to other states.
Women With Disability Australia website hosts many Easy English publications. If you scroll down you will find Auslan videos among others. Scroll further and there are documents in Kriol, Torres Straight Islander Creole, and Warumungu.
Your Human Rights Toolkit is a bundle of four documents in Easy English.
Easy Read UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is also a good resource for getting a grasp of this long complicated document.
Editor’s comment: I’d like to see Easy Read and Easy English standard for all organisations . Universally designed documents make so much sense for everyone. It gives an opportunity to get the key points and before looking at a more complex document.
Transportation’s latest buzz-word is “new mobility”. The focus of transportation has moved from infrastructure to people getting out and about. That is, a move from what it is to what it does. Our mobility, whether walking or riding, is key to everything else in our lives. Transportation connects us to people and places. The impending changes to the way transport services will be delivered in the future is the topic of a new strategy document.
Signing up to a United Nations (UN) convention isn’t just a feel-good affair. It actually brings obligations. That means reporting on a regular basis to the relevant UN committee. In Australia, the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department is responsible for government reports on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But it isn’t all up to the government: people with disability must be involved. Their reports are known as “Civil Society Shadow Reports”. This is where the story gets interesting when it comes to universal design in housing.
Observations during the 2011 Tsunami disaster in Japan showed that the colour of signage matters a lot. A
The results of this study and other colour studies are reflected in the Japanese standards for the paint, printing and design industries. The colour scheme-set contains 20 colours and is divided into groups depending on whether things are small scale or large scale. Bright pink turned out to be a colour for large signage. For more on the colours go to the Open Journal of Social Science and 
It would seem that green spaces are only part of the story when it comes to urban design and health. Beautiful buildings also rate highly according to a study in the UK. However, beautiful landscapes need to be enjoyed by the whole population. But we still have architects thinking of children, disability inclusion, and ageing as a ‘tacked on’ afterthought or special add-on feature. Architecture and health go together.
Acrylic screens have appeared at almost every reception desk in response to covid-safe requirements. But without related hearing augmentation installed, it makes it harder to hear each other. 
The design of the built environment can make or break a successful transportation system. Transport for NSW and the state government architect have updated their guide to movement and place to aid practitioners. 
When it comes to accessibility in the built environment, wheelchair users get the most attention. Partly because the access icon looks like a wheelchair user, and partly because built environment standards are based around them. But what about users of other mobility devices? A long ramp might be no problem for a powered wheelchair user. However, walking a long ramp with a wheelie walker, or pushing a wheelchair is another matter. 
The academic debate about nuanced differences between universal design and inclusive design continue. But to what purpose? Nevertheless, it is useful to know where this began and why it continues. Some terms come from human rights legislation (accessibility), some from policy (ageing in place), and some from an individual perspective (person-environment fit). But are they rivals, and if so, rivals for what?
