Jane Bringolf, Author at

Architects have a creative responsibility

An article in Architecture and Design magazine makes the point that architects have a creative responsibility to ensure designs are not just accessible but also inclusive and future proofed. In most cases renovating a building to be accessible costs significantly more than making the building accessible from new. Consequently, it makes economic sense to make places and spaces inclusive from the beginning.

There are three easy changes architects can make to their design process to make more inclusive places and spaces. First, involve people with disability and other marginalised groups in the design phase. In other words, co-design.

Co-designing with a diversity of building users is an essential element of a universal design approach. Architects get to understand the challenges and barriers as well as the solutions that come from this process. The second change is to look beyond access consultants.

Access consultants typically focus on regulatory compliance to make sure they meet standards. However, if given more scope, they can also provide solutions beyond the standards within a co-design process. The third change is to avoid exaggerating the design challenges.

The co-design process brings practical solutions to the table that are often outside the usual architectural ideas about universal design. For example, the cost of a ramp can be saved if it can be designed out.

The article concludes, “Ultimately, the true measure of architectural excellence lies not just in the beauty of the structures we create but the lives changed by making accessibility non-negotiable”.

The title of the magazine article is, How architects can help create a more inclusive Australia.

Some background research

A research project by Ielegems and Vanrie compared the costs of new-build with renovation. They found that both have costs but they are significantly lower for new-builds. The aim of their study was to find a research method to calculate the cost of universal design. Their paper is necessarily technical and covers different types of public buildings. The findings vary according to the scale of each building.

However, economic arguments usually favour the users of the building and not the builders and developers. Consequently, going beyond compliance becomes a political and ethical decision rather than an economic one.

The title of the article is, The cost of Universal Design for public buildings: Exploring a realistic, context dependent research approach. It is covered in more detail in a previous post and was cited and downloaded from the CUDA website for the magazine article above.

Neurodiversity and built environments: A guide

A significant number of people find certain aspects of the built environment uncomfortable, distressing or a barrier due to neurological differences. To address this, the British Standards Institute has a guide for designing built environments to include people who are neurodivergent. The whole population is neurodiverse, individuals might be neurotypical or neurodivergent.

The guide covers external spaces for public and commercial use as well as residential accommodation for independent living. It is one of the few documents that explains neurodiversity in a way that designers can understand.

Neurodiverse and neurotypical

The term ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘neurodiverse’ are clarified in the introduction. Neurodiversity is about us all – it is not one condition. It is about the way each of thinks, speaks, moves and communicates. It is better explained as “sensory and/or information processing difference” and this is the term frequently used in the guide.

Different terms are used to describe different neurological profiles:

1. Neurotypical: someone fitting a majority neurological profile and is not neurodivergent.
2. Neurodivergent: someone who sits outside majority neurological profile commonly associated with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia and Tourette’s syndrome.
3. Neurodegenerative: A condition whereby sensory processing differences develop over time such as Parkinson’s.

The guide deals with:

- Lighting
- Acoustics
- Décor
- Flooring
- Layout
- Wayfinding

Familiarity
Clarity
Safety
Thermal comfort
Odour

The title of the guide is, PAS 6463:2022 Design for the mind. Neurodiversity and the built environment. Guide. The link will take you to the introductory web page where you can request a free digital copy for download. Note that you will need an additional app to open the document and to sign in as a user. It’s worth the effort.

The guide is just that. It is not a specification or code of practice and it is assumed that it will be used by qualified people. The guide does not cover special education environments, dementia or complex care settings or detailed guidance on sensory room design.

Reporting disability issues in the media

Media Diversity Australia has updated their handbook for reporting on disability issues in the media. The 2024 edition is written for both journalists and marketing professionals.

A key point for journalists and marketing professionals is the scarcity of appropriate stock images of people with disability and older people. For example, at Getty Images, the visuals downloaded by Australian businesses and media in 2020 focused on white people with physical disability.

This is a well researched document that covers more than the usual topics. It also has specific “how to” guides for interviewing people with different disabilities. The Disability Reporting Handbook is a good companion to the ABC guide to disability content – see below.

The Handbook covers the usual introductions to disability and golden rules about language and images. Infographics for statistics provide useful information about disability in Australia. The handbook also covers:

- - Intersectionality with disability in relation to women, First Nations people, people from linguistically diverse backgrounds and LGBTQIA+ communities.
  - Violence and disability, including support services available.
  - How-to guides for interviewing people with disability covering physical, sensory, cognitive, psychosocial and neurodiverse conditions.
  - Images and audio
  - Marketing and advertising

“The biggest barrier to full participation in the community for people with disability is attitude. Most Australian’s with disability experience the soft bigotry of low expectations”. (Graeme Innes, former Disability Discrimination Commissioner)

The contributors have varied backgrounds in media and journalism. They consulted widely in the development of this comprehensive publication. Media Diversity Australia is a not for profit organisation that believes the media should reflect the cultural diversity of Australia. They have another publication, Who Gets to Tell Australian Stories?

ABC guide to disability content

Australia’s public broadcaster, the ABC, has a guide to disability content. The guide covers appropriate behaviour and language in reporting and portraying disability content. It’s applicable to all ABC platforms including social media. It’s a good guide for all journalism and anyone new to interacting with people with disability.

The title of the guide is, Reporting and Portraying Disability in ABC Content. Arranging and conducting interviews, asking questions, language and terminology are all covered. Many journalists are up to date with their language now, but images are still a problem. And there is still a tendency to place people with disability into a victim or a hero role.

The information about arranging and conducting interviews includes checking on any assistance or support they might need. Saying someone is inspirational is not appropriate. So check facts and don’t run with assumptions.

Photographers and camera operators need similar information to avoid showing pitying pictures or focusing on assistive equipment. Wheelchairs are not the sum total of people with disability.

Images of disability in journalism

The guide gives the following advice:

- Avoid portraying individuals as objects of pity. For example, photograph a person using a wheelchair at their level, not looking down on them. Powerful, positive reinforcing images are generally preferred, depending on the editorial context.
- Only show the person’s disability if it is critical to the story.
- Avoid focusing on equipment unless that is the focus of the story. Avoid gratuitous cutaways of wheelchairs, canes, hearing aids and other devices.
- Avoid having the talent’s carers or family in photos or video unless they are also part of the story. Show the talent as having autonomy over their own lives.
- Avoid showing the person with disability as isolated from the community unless that is the focus of the story.
- Avoid using stock images as the majority reinforce stereotypes of disability and are of poor quality.
- Avoid using images of mobility aids, such as photos of wheelchairs, as a generic image for a story about disability.
- Do consider using people with disabilities to illustrate stories that are not about disability, to show they are a regular part of the community.
- Do aim for diversity in imagery of people with disabilities and include people culturally diverse backgrounds and gender diverse people also live with disability
- Do show people with disabilities doing normal things, such as catching public transport or shopping, but avoid making it ‘inspiration porn’. It’s just life.
- Do show people with disabilities in positions of power and authority.

Image from ABC News website

Use BIM to ensure accessibility

BIM – Building Information Modelling – is a process to ensure the planning, design and construction of buildings is efficient and collaborative. It’s a collegial way of different building professionals sharing their data to create a 3D model of the building. Consequently, with informed decisions, BIM can ensure accessibility of a building at all stages of construction.

A 3D model of a construction framework applied to a bridge. — *Image from Trimble Construction*

The purpose of Magdalena Kladz’s paper is to show the application of BIM in designing for accessibility. She uses an existing single-family home to illustrate how it works and explain some of the technicalities. The home was chosen because of population ageing and the desire to age in one’s own home.

The case study looks at different means to make the home accessible. The illustrations and images are useful supports for the text. While the case study is a single home, the process is applicable to any building. As Kladz says,

“Accessible buildings enhance the overall quality of life for a city’s residents, who do not feel excluded due to their disabilities, age, or gender. … Furthermore, designing accessible housing contributes to urban sustainability and reduces the negative impact of construction on the environment. Adapting existing buildings and constructing new ones according to universal design principles allows for long-term fulfilment of residents’ needs, without the necessity of demolishing and rebuilding.”

The title of the of the article is Using BIM for the development of accessibility. The video below provides an overview of BIM and how it works.

From the abstract

Accessibility affects every individual especially with ageing populations. By applying the principles of universal design, all needs related to mobility, vision, hearing, and other issues are met, thereby creating inclusive spaces that eliminate social exclusion and enhance the quality of life.

This article demonstrates the usefulness of BIM in building urban accessibility. We used a point cloud acquired from laser scanning of a single-family building. Based on this, a digital BIM model of the actual building was created in Revit and subsequently modernised.

The aim was to remove barriers from the building, as stipulated in the relevant regulation. The BIM model is a geometric representation of the building, and a digital reconstruction of the object.

Young people and co-design

The views and experiences of young people are often left on the sidelines. Yet they have most to lose or gain in the way society evolves. So perhaps they should be the ones to craft strategies and approaches for creating the futures they want. Co-design methods are clearly the way to get young people participating in social change processes in their local area.

A study focusing on young people creating social change using co-creation techniques provides some useful insights. The aim of the researcher’s exploratory framework was to capture the explicit and implicit aspirations of young individuals. This approach also serves to increase our understanding of how to engage with young people.

The paper explains the methodology of ‘now-wow-how’ phases. This method was selected for accessibility and relevance in facilitating conversations with people unfamiliar with design skills. The co-design process used different tools at different stages.

A section of the paper is devoted to a critical reflection on what could have worked better. For example the author feels the school-based venue potentially limited explorative inquiries.

The study showed that exploratory co-creative sessions with young people can yield innovative insights to inform more direct change. Such sessions require tools that resonate with young peoples’ experiences while also stimulating both critical and creative thinking.

This paper provides details of the project’s structure, methodologies, and outcomes. In so doing, it provides insights into the processes of co-creation within community development and the empowerment of youth.

The title of the article is Young 2.0: advancing an inclusive framework for co-creating futures with youth.

From the abstract

This study presents an inclusive research approach aimed at cultivating inclusivity and co-creating future living environments that resonate with young peoples’ needs and aspirations.

Through co-creative activities, the project captured insights into the lived experiences and future ambitions of young participants. The findings identify some of the entrenched norms and activities that spurred empathy and inclusive thinking through making and enactment.

The project contributes to the initiatives, strategies and methods for young people to shape the future of their hometown. The ‘Young 2.0’ project serves as a microcosm of the potential inherent in co-design to serve as a conduit for youth to express and enact their visions for a more inclusive society.

Hostile design: what is it for?

It’s one thing to create inaccessible built environments through thoughtlessness. It is another to do it intentionally. Hostile design has emerged as an architectural response to homelessness, specifically rough sleepers. Rough sleepers need a flat surface on which to lie down, but flat surfaces are also a place of rest for other citizens.

Put simply, hostile designs are intentionally created to restrict behaviours in urban spaces in order to maintain public order.

Examples of this type of design are highlighted in a paper titled, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. Mostly these are benches with raised or sloping sections. However, low height walls are also used as temporary resting places by pedestrians.

A purple coloured wall surrounds a street planting. The wall is at sitting height but it has anti-seating bars across it. A man is crouching down in front of the wall. — Photo by Jonathan Pacheco Bell

The author considers hostile design a reflection of the prevailing social values which ends up defining who has access to public space and who doesn’t. Finding ways to hide homelessness is not the answer to the problem. Everyone has an equal right to use public space.

The article discusses the issues from a rights perspective – the right to the city. The removal of rough sleepers from the public domain appeases the discomfort of people who have a home to go to. But it does not deal with the issue of homelessness. Indeed, architecture should be looking at ways to minimise homelessness, not hiding it with uninviting design.

The title of the article is, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design.

Hostile design doesn’t solve social problems

If nothing else, hostile design shows the power of design – it makes it obvious. But does it? According to Semple, most people don’t notice it, but when they do, they get angry about it. And urban design should not be street police – the problems only move elsewhere. Designers cannot solve societal problems with street furniture.

Design Week’s article Hostile design is still a problem in our pubic spaces, has an everyday look at the issues.

The City as Home

The City as Home is a landscape-led response by Logan Bunn to the treatment of rough sleepers. His thesis challenges this form of social control as it instils injustice and inequality within the urban fabric.

The overarching methodology of this thesis is research through inclusive design, supported by participatory research.

“This thesis highlights the need to humanise rough sleepers and integrate their needs into the design of public space, whilst also demonstrating the positive impact of inclusive and empathetic design practices on the broader community. It underscores the potential of landscape architectural practice to address social justice issues and create more inclusive public spaces through proactive collaboration and activism.”

Universal design and workplaces

“The universal design approach aspires to create spaces that are not just accessible or usable, but inclusive for everyone.” This is the opening line of a chapter on universal design and workplaces in the Handbook of High-Performance Workplaces.

Authors Imogen Howe and Andrew Martel remind us that disability can be temporary or permanent and at any stage of life. Complying with codes in workplace design is not that same as quality design or even adequate design. That means some people will experience barriers that prevent participation and make them feel unwelcome and second class.

Seven principles expanded

Howe and Martel turn to the seven principles of universal design and take them one step further. They should be applied to assistive technology, tools, organisational or operational decisions, as well as the physical space of the workplace. Integrating these elements into a universal design approach benefits all workers.

The authors explain how the principles of universal design have moved from the 1997 interpretation to a more contemporary one. The principles were formed primarily with the built environment in mind. Universal design thinking has evolved to embrace a broader concept of inclusion in all aspects of life.

Universal design should remain agile and flexible to respond to socio-cultural advancements. It was never meant to be one-size-fits-all as this is impossible. An inclusive society needs both mainstream and targeted individual solutions as well.

A checklist is included at the end of the chapter where each of the principles is applied to workplace situations. This is one of the difficulties of explaining universal design. On one hand it isn’t about a checklist – it’s a thinking process. But designers need something to guide them. In co-design processes with end users, checklists often become redundant. However, checklists are a good place to start for people new to the concept of designing inclusively.

From the conclusion

Since the pandemic many businesses have introduced flexible work arrangements which have proven to be efficient and productive. Urban-based office buildings are just one place to work. Working from home is one strategy that suits people who struggle with transport or have caring duties.

A universal design approach is a way employers can attract people with diverse needs when seeking work. The principles of universal design can assist designers to implement inclusive thinking in their designs. Implementing these principles early in the design process is inexpensive and can result in more flexible, sustainable buildings that benefit all users.

The title of the chapter is Universal Design and it is open access.

Design in strategy and strategy in design

How do we solve big problems such as pandemics, climate change, and unemployment? Linear step by step processes are no longer the way to address these complex challenges. Something else is needed. Jan Auernhammer discusses the issues in his latest article, Design in Strategy and Strategy in Design.

Auernhammer proposes that complex problems require collaborative processes and capabilities. People with diverse perspectives work on solutions together to come up with the best possible solutions. In other words, co-design processes work best.

Auernhammer first clarifies the vocabulary that’s needed to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. He then presents three perspectives. First, is a method that uses tools, models and plans. Second, is learning through collective reflection from intent and action. Third, where design and strategy emerge from creative and collaborative processes.

Put simply, the first perspective follows established logic, the second is where designers think about it, and the third is co-design. The third perspective is about deep engagement in a psychologically safe and free environment. This might be in the design studio itself with other designers, or with stakeholders in a community engagement process.

From the summary

“Integrating Strategy and Design requires building collaborative and comprehensive design capabilities. These collective capabilities have the potential to respond to emerging complex challenges with strategic intent and through sophisticated design capabilities enacted in everyday practice.”

The title of the article is, Strategic Design: The integration of the two fields of Strategy and Design.

From the abstract

This article outlines the evolution of Design in Strategy and Strategy in Design and discusses the differences and similarities. Examination of the evolutions reveals three different perspectives on integrating Strategy and Design in both fields.

The article provides a nuanced understanding of Strategic Design by purposefully establishing the vocabulary of each perspective.

The first perspective is a planning practice containing strategic tools and design methods to create conceptual models and plans. The second perspective is a learning practice through collective reflection from intent and action.

The last perspective is the enablement of a comprehensive design practice in which tangible design and strategy emerge from the messiness of creative and collaborative design practice.

These three Strategic Design practices require different organization and design capabilities and produce distinctive outcomes. The integration of Design and Strategy is becoming increasingly imperative as there is the need to address the more complex, interrelated socio-technological and economic-environmental challenges.

Bus stops: pedestrians and cyclists

We are all encouraged to leave the motor car at home and walk or cycle. However, road and street infrastructure was built at a time when vehicle movements were the focus. That means a lot of retrofitting and work-arounds is needed now. The intersection of bus stops, pedestrians and cyclists is a good example of this vexed issue.

Are infrastructure designs for bus stops with cycle tracks making streets less inclusive? Image from Inclusive design at bus stops, by Living Streets.

graphic showing one design of a cycleway bypass at a bus stop.

What do you do when a cycle lane continues past a bus stop? What do pedestrians do and what do cyclists do? Who has right of way? Are design solutions inclusive? Living Streets in the UK investigated these questions and produced a report.

The most consistent concerns were reported by people who are blind or have low vision. But other pedestrians have problems too. Confusion reigns over who has the right of way on cycle tracks that are not part of the footpath or carriageway.

The Living Streets report reviews the literature and the status of cycle tracks in the UK. Several design options were studied and four are presented in the report (see below).

Four design scenarios are depicted in the drawings where the bus stop and the cycleway are positioned in different configurations.

The researchers found that it was not possible to choose one design over another. While they provide a useful framework, they don’t solve all the design problems in the real world. Consequently, this leads to case-by-case solutions, not a one-size-fits-all ruling or guide.

The main factors

Some of the main factors are whether:

The cycle track passes in front of, behind, or between, elements of the bus stop area.
Passengers wait on an island or on an ordinary stretch of the pavement, and whether they alight onto the cycle track, near the cycle track, or onto an obvious island
A bus stop island is part of something bigger (e.g. with multiple shelters, seats, trees, etc), smaller and well defined (e.g. dominated by a single bus shelter), or so small and/or insignificant that people wouldn’t wait on it.
Cycle tracks are one-way or two-way (unidirectional / bi-directional).
A bus stop island is separated from the rest of the pavement by a cycle track, by a road, or by some less conventional access arrangement (e.g. mostly used by cyclists, but open to some other vehicles)
Pedestrians are crossing an area of cycle track, cyclists are crossing an area of pavement, or whether cyclists and pedestrians both cross something that feels to be neither quite part of the pavement nor of the cycle track.

Recommendations for bus stops

Briefly, the 11 recommendations focus on:

working with the disability community on local projects
amending design guidance to be clear that cycle tracks are not part of the footpath or carriageway, and options for designs
the risks of disadvantage to a wider group of pedestrians, particularly people who are blind, should be acknowledged.

Appendices are instructive

There are 6 appendices to the main report with details of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and bus stops. Photographs illustrate the text and provide examples of what does and does not work. A great toolbox of ideas to work with. Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendix 1 – (Detailed study sites)

Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendices 2-6 – MARCH 2024

There is much more to this document titled, Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks – MARCH 2024. Kerb designs, colour, separation of pedestrians and cyclists, kerb-free crossings and signalised crossings. A pertinent point raised by people with disability was about the emphasis on this aspect of street design. That’s because they see so many other serious problems with street design and maintenance.

Personal robots: what older people think

Are personal robots the next best thing for companionship for older people – is this what they want? A study carried out in the UK used three types of robot – abstract, pet, and human-like. Publicly available videos of the robots were used in the study. As with all laboratory and simulated studies there is no guarantee that the results will play out in real life. Nevertheless, it offers a guide of older people’s attitudes to personal robots.

In terms of companionship, older people liked the pet personal robot the most. The pet-like robot responds to human movement and sounds. Image of MiRo pet-like personal robot.

A white personal robot resembling a cat or dog with black ears and a red collar.

The participants were over the age of 60 years and living in the community, not residential care. The three types of robot were Afobot, MiRo, and Sanbot. Afobot is similar to Siri and Alexa in assisting with activities. MiRo is designed to interact at an emotional level and to respond to actions such as hand clapping and stroking. Sanbot is a human-like robot with a head, arms and a screen and uses face and voice recognition.

Participants viewed publicly available videos of the three robots and then answered a questionnaire. The purpose of the study was to measure the attitudes of older people to the three types of personal robots. The researchers note that as the study participants were “young old”, attitudes might not be attributable to those 70 years and older.

The researchers caution the results because participants did not interact with the robots face to face. This means they were not able to explore the robot’s behaviour and their own reactions. The study was conducted online towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The title of the study is, Measuring Older People’s Attitudes Towards Personal Robots.

From the abstract

It is important to have a way of measuring older people’s attitudes to personal robots and how they might support them. 249 older people in the UK viewed videos of three different types of robots (abstract, pet, and humanoid). They rated their attitudes to each using a questionnaire.

Analysis revealed three components to attitudes to the personal robots, They were: Positive User Experience; Anxiety and Negative Usability; and Social Presence. There were significant differences between the three personal robots with the pet robot receiving the most positive attitudes.

These results help understand which robots may be useful in helping older people choose appropriate robots to support themselves.

Author: Jane Bringolf