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. The Inclusive Design Research Centre in Canada explains:
“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.
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.
The Inclusive Design Research Centre website has a page spelling out their position. In a nutshell they explain why they use the term “inclusive”:
“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”.
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. However, the 8 Goals of Universal Design are probably more practical and instructive.
Adjusting to online platforms for our work and social life during the pandemic was relatively easy for many. But for some, the situation isn’t so easy. 
Real life examples of taking a universal design approach to urban areas are few and far between. This is especially the case for established city areas including those that are heritage listed. So, a universal design case study from Konya, a heritage city in Turkey, makes an interesting subject for a case study. 
There is a myriad of academic papers on the topic of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). So it’s good to get some practical assistance from practitioners. 
The Guide sets standards for designing, planning and implementing footpaths. It sets targets for five levels of footpaths: local with low and medium activity, and main streets with low, medium and high activity. There is no standard less than 2 metres wide. 
Universal design is a thinking process that aims for the most inclusive design solutions possible – designing universally. It is a process that improves through iteration. This means that you can’t specify a standard, which is for one point in time, because it stops the process of continuous improvement. But we don’t live in a perfect world and some people just want to know they got it right. That means they want a standard. 
We hear people talk about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), but how many of us have read it? It’s a big document and not easy to read. It covers every aspect of life and every person of every age. The CRPD matters to all of us. Eventually disability will touch each of us and our family members and friends. 
In the context of “leave no-one behind” the United Nations is keen to live the message of disability inclusion in its own operations. The UN can better support member states with their own challenges if they are practicing inclusion in their own operations. 
