Author: Jane Bringolf

Intuitive to use: Does it work as a design guide?

Four buttons are lined up one above the other. They are used to open and close the door. There are lots of written instructions.The seven classic principles of universal design were developed in the 1990s and are still applied in many contexts. The concept of universal design continues to evolve. Today, the concept is better understood as a way of thinking about inclusion throughout the design process. Newcomers to the concept of universal design often try to apply the principles literally rather than as a guide for design thinking. Maybe it is time for a product recall? The classic principles are not themselves intuitive to use. And herein lies the problem. Consequently, Steinfeld and Maisel devised the 8 Goals of Universal Design in 2012. The 8th Goal is about cultural inclusion. These goals are easier to apply and more suited to adaptation to different design disciplines. However, they have yet to receive the same attention as the classic principles. Not surprisingly, there have been many academic papers critiquing the seven principles. Academics are now arguing nuances between universal design and intuitive design, or applying principles in a tick-box fashion. One such paper is focused on the third principle, simple and intuitive to use. The author concludes that as a design principle it doesn’t work because it doesn’t say how it is done, but is useful as a reminder to think about a broad range of users. It is worth noting that the researcher did not consult with users during the design. Rather, an example from an existing design was used to critique the principle of intuitive to use.  The author reports on the application of an automatic locking system on a toilet door on a new train in Norway. The trains were designed with the principles of universal design. This includes an electronic door locking system for the toilet. However, this system has many passengers confused in spite of written instructions and icons. Consequently passengers have found themselves in embarrassing situations due to the door not being locked. Clearly there is something wrong with the design for everyone. It fails the test of intuitive to use. But is this a problem with the principle, or the designers who failed to properly test the design? Did following the principles give unfounded comfort to the designer such that no product testing was used? The title of the article is, Intuitive use in design guidelines: Can intuitive use be applied to a product?   An article in Medium has picked up the story and concludes it is bad design. It adds the critical point that if you need lots of instructions on how to use something then it is definitely not intuitive.

Abstract

Several design guidelines recommend to design for intuitive use and marketing often advertises products as intuitive in use – but what does it mean for a design to be intuitive? One design guideline that embraces intuitive use is described by the principles of universal design. The third principle says that the design should strive for ‘Simple and intuitive use’ regardless of experience and cognitive abilities. This article will examine the concept of intuitive use and address the case of an automatic toilet door system that, even though universally designed, seems to be confusing to many users. From the literature, the focus will lie on the concepts of affordance and familiarity, due to its relation to intuition. The case is further used to evaluate these concepts and to see if principle three of universal design is possible to fulfill. The article concludes that the principle is a good reminder of an important concept; however, the design process needs supplements from other design literature to fulfill the principle. 

Who do designers design for?

Four women and one man sit casually around a table where there are coloured pens and drawings.Who does the designing and what do they design? If the design works, users don’t think about the designer. But when the design works poorly, or not at all, the designer becomes the focus. “What were they thinking?” is the catch-cry. In spite of much research and literature on designing thoughtfully and inclusively, we still have a long way to go. So who do designers design for? A short paper takes a critical look at five design approaches from last century that remain current. The author discusses “Accessible” in terms of partial inclusion and design afterthoughts. “Inclusive/Universal Design” is discussed from the perspective of eliminating disability rather than embracing diversity. Six degrees of “User-Centred Design” is the focus of this design approach where users get a say in the design. An extension of user-centred design is “Participatory Design” which is also a learning experience for designers. Lastly, “Emancipatory Design” is praised for being empowering for people with disability. The title of the short paper is, Design Methodologies and Ethos in Disability: Research Snapshot. Editor’s Note: The Universal Design movement is sometimes accused of wanting to design out disability. Perhaps this view can be traced back to the mistaken interpretation of universal as “one-size-fits-all”. The concept of universal design in the context of the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is very much one of inclusion, equity and acceptance of diversity. 

From the Introduction

The subject of design is one that dominates the disability literature. Throughout the past number of years, there has been a push among researchers and advocates to think critically about the ways in which design is executed and by whom. Design has taken on a central role in the ‘normalization’ of disability. Each of these design methodologies and ethos has had an essential impact on built and design environments; however, there is still a considerable need for progress. Importantly, these design methodologies and ethos bring to light the significance of understanding that in today’s society, it is normative that environments and technologies are designed for people with disabilities, not by people with disabilities.   

Save travel time with accessibility

Street with footpath in a new development. Save travel time with accessibility.Improved accessibility saves travel time, and encourages more social activity, particularly for older people. This was one of the findings in a study based on access standards in three countries. Accessibility was also associated with safety and this could have a significant effect on travel behaviour.

It seems that transportation planners should commence their planning with disability access in mind. Then they can be sure the benefits will apply to everyone. Sze and Christensen’s study on accessible transportation compares transport access standards in USA, UK, and Hong Kong. The authors report that  in all three access standards minimum requirements are supplemented with criteria for desired requirements. The paper provides technical information, dimensions and design improvements as well as discussion and conclusions.

The article is titled, Access to urban transportation system for individuals with disabilities. It can be accessed online or by downloading the PDF version. 

Shows the street of a new housing development with driveways for cars but no footpath for peopleEditor’s Note: I attended a symposium on healthy built environments and transportation. The content was largely about cycling and reducing road use by private vehicles. The focus for public transport was on working age people. Footpaths did not rate a mention until I raised it. I was told that footpaths on both sides of the street are not economically viable. Before laying a footpath a study should be done on how much use it might get.

Other studies have shown that lack of good and even footpaths are a major reason older people will choose to take the car for all trips. Yet often, the people with the most time to undertake incidental and social walking are older people as well as non-working parents with prams and people with disability.

From the Abstract

Safe, efficient and accessible transportation is a key component of community integration. This study attempts to review the current practices and guidelines for accessible design of transportation, both access to and within transport facilities, based on the information from the United States, United Kingdom, and Hong Kong. Besides, the effects of accessible design of transportation on perceived level of service, accessibility, safety and travel behavior would be examined. Therefore, good practices of accessible design that could address the needs for all, especially the elderly and individuals with different types of disability including visual impairment, hearing difficulty and reduced mobility, could be recommended. Hence, quality of life of vulnerable group can be enhanced, and community integration will be achieved in the long run.

Architectural Design Thinking: Human-centred design

An architectural drawing with a rule and pencil.Design Thinking is about human-centred design. Empathy, ideation and experimentation are at the heart of the user-focused concept. It can be applied to management and services as well as design disciplines. The built environment consists of diverse professions – architects, engineers, drafters and construction workers. What if they all understood inclusion and human-centred design in the same way? Architectural drafters work with architects and engineers by preparing drawings. It is a technical role and requires knowledge about the whole architectural process. While there is some progress on understanding and designing for inclusion by architects and engineers, this is not necessarily the case for drafters. What if you took a group of junior architectural drafting students and taught them the concept of Design Thinking? And what if they were hard of hearing or Deaf? An experimental study in Turkey did just that. The study was a mix of architectural knowledge and teaching methods specific to students with hearing impairments and language difficulties. So there is an element of UDL as well. In conclusion, the author says that Design Thinking has the potential as a teaching strategy in other educational settings. The conclusions cover both successes and pitfalls.The report is lengthy and detailed.  The title of the article is, Design Thinking to Familiarize Hearing-Impaired Architectural Drafting Students with Human-Centered Design Concept. 

From the abstract

Developing a human-centered design understanding in built environment-related professions and enabling them to encompass diversity are crucial for the improvement of more inclusive environments. There is a growing effort to implement inclusive and universal design issues to the educational programs of design and related disciplines for about two decades. Contrary to the developments in the pedagogy of “core” design disciplines, human-centered design perspective seems not to be widespread enough in the education of so-called “peripheral” occupations of design, like architectural drafting. Published in the International Journal of Architecture and Planning, Vol 8, No1, pp:62-87.

Is design thinking about inclusive design?

A desk with a large sheet of paper and pink post it notes. A person stands with their hand resting on the table. Design Thinking is not inclusive design.
Some design thinking…
“Design thinking” will not produce inclusive design, according to an article in FastCo by Katherine Schwab. She claims it just maintains the status quo. She also claims design thinking privileges the designer above the users and limits their participation in the design process. Despite being encouraged to empathise with users, the designer is the one deciding what elements of the users’ experience are relevant. Therefore ‘Design Thinking’ is not about inclusive design. This article has links to an essay from Harvard Business Review by Natasha Iskander who refers to a six step design process that claims to solve any problem. Iskander says that design thinking doesn’t encourage innovation. Rather, it is a strategy to preserve and defend the status quo, which means the designer remains in control. There is more on Iskander’s challenge to Design Thinkers in her essay.  

Curitiba Bus System: Good planning in action

A bus is offloading passengers at a raised tube shaped bus stop. The floor of the bus stop is level with the entry to the bus. Curitiba bus system. Thirty years ago, Curitiba’s forward-thinking and cost-conscious planners integrated public transportation into all the other elements of the urban planning system. They initiated a bus system that focused on meeting the transportation needs of all people. Consequently they claim to have a system that is both efficient and accessible.

While the tube shaped bus shelters seem a little cumbersome being raised up to be level with the bus entry, they shelter travellers from the weather and create a relatively level entry to and from the bus. They also claim that time spent at each stop is less than 30 seconds. Read about the planning of this rapid transport system in southern Brazil. It should be noted that this is not common practice in other parts of Brazil. The title of the article is Curitiba Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit.

A person in a manual wheelchair is entering onto the short yellow ramp into the bus from the tube shaped bus shelter

Woman with a baby stroller using the platform lift to get onto the raised bus stop platform .The bus stop is a tube shaped shelter

Universal design in housing: The time has come

House half built showing timber framework. Universal design in housing. The time has come.Time has come for the housing industry to catch up with the rest of society. Inclusion and diversity are now recognised as Australian values. Discrimination still exists of course, but many sectors, business and government, are striving to do better. That means designing products and services to embrace population diversity. However, the housing industry continues to resist change as evidenced by their lobbying to prevent state governments from adopting the Livable Housing Design Standard. They say it will substantially increase the cost of building a home. But how much is “substantially”?

Smaller building firms have shown that for a maximum of $3000 they can deliver universally designed homes. That’s because they thought of the design from the outset. They have adapted the cookie cutter shape.

One of the reasons the housing industry says it will cost more is because level entry is difficult to achieve on a steep slope. This can be true, but that is no reason for no change at all. Exceptions are made for one-off situations. Besides, mass market housing in a greenfield site is rarely on a steep slope – these are not favoured by developers. 

The evidence

Two eminent economists responded to the call to comment on the draft changes and have concluded that benefits outweigh the costs. Dense reading but the document challenges the ABCB analysis at every point. They also conclude that Gold level of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines are not only beneficial to the community but they offer the best value overall. 

Australia Cannot Afford NOT to Build Accessible Homes, gives an overview of why we must mandate universal design features now. We’ve had ten years for Livable Housing Australia to show that it can do this voluntarily. It has failed. It’s time for them to come good.

For the history of nearly 20 years of advocacy see Universal Housing Design in Australia: Getting to Yes.

 

Enabling environments for dementia

A older man and woman are smiling at each other. The man is handing the woman a yellow tulip. Creating environments for dementia.Staying home has taken on a new meaning, and for some, a priority, amid the COVID-19 pandemic. But what if the design of the home environment isn’t helping, especially if you have dementia? Alzheimer’s WA has a great website with really practical information on houses and apartments. But we need to create all environments for dementia.

Of course, staying home also means staying in the community. So the neighbourhood and facilities need to be dementia-friendly too. The website also has this covered. There are sections on, Public buildings, Gardens, Hospitals, and Care environments.

Each section takes you to a floor plan with interactive buttons. Each button takes you to an illustration of a room or space, again with buttons for more information. For example, a click on a floor plan kitchen takes you to an illustration of a kitchen. Within this illustration are buttons checking off each of the design principles, such as lighting and cooking. There are PDF lists for download as well.

This website is a comprehensive virtual information centre for living with dementia. It’s useful for family members and designers alike. Some elements might be something as simple as rearranging things so they can be seen. Others might need more design know-how. A great resource. 

There’s also a Dementia Friendly Home app and a virtual experience by Dementia Australia. 

Image courtesy Alzheimer’s WA.

Dementia-friendly neighbourhoods

Dementia-friendly neighbourhoods is a growing area of transdisciplinary research. But there are challenges and gaps that limit the depth of knowledge which need further research. An article from the University of Michigan outlines the issues for the built and social environments. 

Neighbourhoods are multi-sensory – sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. Technological advances support things like wayfinding and memory in navigating environments. 

The authors discuss the need for participatory methods to identify areas of need and to prioritise neighbourhood issue. 

The title of the article is, Dementia-friendly neighbourhoods, Methodological challenges and research opportunities. It’s an in depth look at the issues from an academic perspective. 

 

Accessible: Not what you think

A man in a wheelchair is separated from the crowd by a low concrete barrierIt takes much more than a ramp to make a place or space accessible. It might allow entry and access for people who use mobility devices, but it doesn’t make for equity or inclusion. This is a well argued point in a Time magazine article. “Accessibility should be a catalytic force for something more” says Eddie Ndopu. It’s a “slippery, deceptive word that belies its own emancipatory meaning”. Ndopu uses the term “accessibility” as meaning inclusion, where perhaps others might use inclusive or universal design. As many others have stated before, technical compliance does not always provide access, let alone inclusion. He discusses how accessibility, in the various interpretations, is, indeed, slippery. It implies freedom but does not deliver the goods.  A well-written and thoughtful read based on personal experience. A good reminder that for all the words, the intentions of those words are yet to be realised. The title of the article is, It’s Time to Rethink the Language of Accessibility. And to Imagine a More Equal World. The caption for the image in the magazine shows Eddie Ndopu, who has a degree from Oxford, works for the UN and plans to go to space. 

Guide for Public Interest Design

Cover of publication showing various people in design situations. Public Interest Design Guide.The Public Interest Design Education Guidebook is for anyone involved in educating and training upcoming designers. This academic guide has three parts: design curricula; educating the designer; and SEED Academic Case Studies.

Drawings alone are inadequate for communicating design intent – other means are required as well. Direct communication using everyday language in a participatory process is essential. In essence, a co-design approach. 

The book challenges educational practitioners to educate students who might become alternative practitioners and design for public interest. “These practitioners enter into a potentially more fulfilling relationship with the site, its history, the community of users whose needs they address, and the members of the workforce who are their collaborators”. 

Public Interest Design Education Guidebook: Curricula, Strategies, and SEED Academic Case Studies, presents a framework necessary to teach public interest designers. There are contributions from a range of authors covering all aspects of design education. They bring diverse approaches for inclusive community-based practices from across design disciplines. 

The teaching strategies in the guide will empower educators “to excel in your pursuit of public interest design”.

SEED is the acronym for “Social Economic Environmental Design”. This is an update on the earlier 2016 edition of the Guidebook. 

Off to work we go. Or do we?

A man holding a boarding pass in his hand along with a bag. You can see the airport in the background.Travelling to work is one thing. Travelling for work is another.  A recent study of Australian university staff who travel for work revealed common difficulties. All participants reported that their disability, whether declared or not, affected their ability to undertake work-based travel. Some of their necessary compromises involved extra cost at their own expense.  There are four things that make travelling for work difficult for people with disability. They are: the way the current system is designed, stigma and victimisation, self reliance and asking for help. And of course, double the effort that anyone else takes for an event-free journey. These factors also apply to the tourism sector. That’s because academics who frequently travel for work might extend their stay for a short vacation. They might take their family too. The university travel booking service on campus often asked participants to seek additional information themselves. That’s because it was not seen as part of the service. One participant found it easier to bypass the system and do their own bookings even though they had to foot the bill. Potentially, the system isn’t smooth sailing for others either. A supervisor told another participant that they couldn’t be an academic if it meant travelling overseas. Booking travel also meant revealing a previously hidden disability. This is a tricky area. Other articles have revealed the reticence to declare a disability for fear of discrimination and disbelief.  The article, Negotiating work-based travel for people with disabilities, has some recommendations. They are applicable for workplaces and tourism operators alike.  You will need institutional access for a free read or contact the authors at The University of Queensland.

Abstract

In an ideal world, inclusive travel services would value each person, support full participation and seek to embrace the similarities, as well as the differences, to be found in society. Anecdotally at least, it seems the unspoken truth for many individuals with a disability is that efforts to engage in any form of travel are often thwarted by poor service provision, systemic bias and discrimination. Using an inductive line of inquiry, this Australian study sought to detail how staff with a disability in the higher education sector negotiated their work-related travel responsibilities. Findings revealed that many felt compromised by current systems and practices with many required to go ‘above and beyond’ that expected of their work colleagues. The results of the research project serve to inform employers about the often unvoiced challenges employees with disabilities face when meeting work-based travel expectations. The findings also contribute directly to the transformative service research agenda by offering clear insight into how the travel and hospitality industry might be more inclusive of employees travelling for work-based purposes to the benefit of all parties.