Jane Bringolf, Author at Centre for Universal Design Australia

Inclusive Light Rail Project

The Bergen Light Rail system is a good example of what can be achieved using a universal design approach. As with most projects this size there are detractors and resisters. But it was accessibility that brought people together to design one of the most successful town planning projects in Norway.

The rail system has brought many aspects of the city together. Not only is the light rail accessible, the whole city is more accessible now and further improvements are planned. People who said they never use public transport, now use it happily.

The key is that the inclusiveness of the design is barely noticeable. Step free access, step free carriages, automatic doors, simple displays, and effective sound and light signals are good for everyone. The architect says it is the first public transport system in Norway that utilises inclusive design at all levels.

“When the planning of the new light rail began in 2006, inclusive design was not stated as a requirement. Many regulations must be considered in a project of this scale. This led to noise and resistance from politicians in the city, which had to be overcome before the project could start. This was followed by discussions about accessibility, the locations of stops near transfer points, transfers to bus and train and step-free transitions.

At the early stage of the project a collaboration was established with FFO (the Norwegian Federation of Organizations of Disabled People). The design team showed them drawings and discussed the ideas with them which inspired many new solutions.”

The story is by Design and Architecture Norway and has a short video. Norway has an overarching plan and policy – Norway Universally Designed 2025 and the update.

Principles of inclusive design

Universal design is diverse in its terminology and explanations. In the UK, the term “inclusive design” is used more often that universal design.

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) describes inclusive design as:

“Inclusive design is about making places everyone can use. It enables everyone to participate equally, confidently and independently. Inclusive design is everyone’s responsibility. That means everyone in the design and construction process”. CABE has in more detail and with photos:

1. Inclusive design places people at the heart of the design process.
2. Inclusive design acknowledges diversity and difference.
3. Inclusive design offers choice where a single design solution cannot accommodate all users
4. Inclusive design provides for flexibility in use.
5. Inclusive design provides buildings and environments that are convenient and enjoyable to use for everyone

CABE says, if the principles are applied, developments will be:

Inclusive so everyone can use them safely, easily and with dignity.
Responsive taking account of what people say they need and want.
Flexible so different people can use them in different ways.
Convenient so everyone can use them without too much effort or separation.
Accommodating for all people, regardless of their age, gender, mobility,
ethnicity or circumstances.
Welcoming with no disabling barriers that might exclude some people.
Realistic offering more than one solution to help balance everyone’s needs
and recognising that one solution may not work for all.

At the heart of all explanations is the quest to include as many people as possible in every design. The list above has similarities with the classic 7 principles of universal design and the 8 goals. Barclays Bank also has a set of principles for inclusive design for the digital world.

Access symbol: inclusive or exclusive?

Confusion still reigns about the international symbol of access (ISA). Is it exclusively for wheelchair users? Or does it denote access for everyone? The ISA was originally created to denote physical spaces for wheelchair accessibility. The access symbol’s meaning has evolved into something much more complex.

A study with participants who were a mix of people with and without disability revealed some interesting findings. However, some participants who did not identify as having a disability described themselves as having some form of impairment. This illustrates ideological differences about disability per se, and highlights how society uses labels and symbols to define a group or culture in wider society.

The article has lots of statistical results. The discussion and conclusions are worth a read because of the implications across society. It includes a look at all the symbols currently in use to signify different disabilities. Some participants wanted to see characteristics of themselves in symbols, but this creates uncertainty with other groups. As an aside, the use of the word “handicap” showed up in participant responses, indicating it is still in common usage.

The title of the article is Effectiveness of the International Symbol of Access and inclusivity of other disability groups.

The article concludes, “Perhaps a more effective solution would be standards which incorporate universal design, thereby ensuring equitable and intuitive use of products and spaces and eliminating the need to symbolically represent population-based accessibility. Initiatives such as Design for All (DfA) in Europe, which was adopted in the EIDD Stockholm Declaration of 2004, and the Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA) program in Singapore, promote a social model of disability by encouraging barrier-free design of products, services, and environments for people of all abilities and under varying socioeconomic situations.”

Does the symbol need to be rethought?

“Does the international symbol for disability need to be rethought”? is the title of an article in the FastCompany blog. First question this raises is, “Is it a symbol for disability or a symbol for access?” Actually, it is a symbol for access, not disability.. The article proposes a variety of symbols for different disabilities. But do we need more symbols and if so, what purpose would they serve?

When universal design isn’t enough

Norway, with its policy and strategies for universal design, has one of the best accessible transport systems. But physical access is not enough for some non-users to catch the bus or train. So, is there a limit to the level of accessibility that should be rolled out? There will always be people with and without disability who will never use public transport. The measure of success isn’t getting more patronage from people with disability. Rather, it’s about maintaining current patronage and new travellers in the future – with and without disability.

Designing a more convenient, easy to use system is good for everyone, now and in the future. A good all round experience can encourage people to leave the car at home. That is, if the transportation takes them to where they want to go efficiently and effectively. While universal design works for most, there will always be a need for individualised solutions.

The title of the paper is, Public transport and people with disabilities – the experiences of non-users.

From the conclusion

The study raises the question of whether universal design or accessibility for all is a good policy objective in public transport. Many of our informants are unable to travel by public transport, even though the system is among the most universally designed available.

Travel by public transport is impossible even if universal design principles ertr implemented close to perfect. This is not to deny that a good universally designed public transport system is an attractive solution, it will help many. However, there will still be some who will not be reached through the universal design agenda.

Therefore, there remains a need for individual solutions, which could increase the individual’s sense of freedom, participation in working life and value added in society among those who do not have physical and/or mental premises for travelling by public transport.

A related project is the Bergen Light Rail system.

Raising the bar on housing standards

Advocates in several countries have been lobbying for mandatory accessible housing standards for many years. At last Habinteg in the UK has succeeded in getting the topic on the government’s agenda.

A forecast for accessible homes, is an important report covering all the key issues, ending with three key actions. The Habinteg report reveals a “huge postcode lottery in the planned supply of new accessible homes…”. Therefore it is crucial to “set a national policy that will create a level playing field and more certainty for developers”.

The report found that existing basic minimum standards as set out in Part M1 of the building code are insufficient. The planned development of accessible housing is set to fall short of previous official predictions. The report also has personal case studies to highlight the impact the lack of availability has on their lives. Mandatory standards within building regulations are needed because Part M1 is too basic. The shortage of housing with liveable access features, which are suitable for everyone, is now at a critical level.

Is there a market for accessible homes?

The Habinteg site has articles that discuss the market appeal of Lifetime Homes in the UK context. There are some interesting research reports by the London School of Economics, Ipsos MORI, and Habinteg Housing and Papworth Trust. UK homes are traditionally two storey with the bathroom and toilet upstairs. They are generally smaller than Australian homes too, which makes it more difficult in terms of circulation spaces.

It was thought that Part M of the building code would create greater accessibility in homes, but it hasn’t helped much at all. The best part is that it requires a downstairs toilet, which is handy for everyone. Aitken explains his own research project on this topic looking at homebuyers and estate agents. The blog site has attracted several good comments and are worth reading too. By the way, it seems stair lifts are not that popular with purchasers.

Double Diamond: Tool for Design

Design isn’t just about tangible objects, it’s also about services and processes. This is where the Double Diamond Tool for Design comes to the fore. The Design Council devised the Double Diamond as a way of graphically explaining the design process. The two diamonds represent a process of exploring an issue and then taking focused action. The key elements of this model are:

Discover. The first diamond helps people understand, rather than simply assume, what the problem is. It involves speaking to and spending time with people who are affected by the issues.
Define. The insight gathered from the discovery phase can help you to define the challenge in a different way.
Develop. The second diamond encourages people to give different answers to the clearly defined problem, seeking inspiration from elsewhere and co-designing with a range of different people.
Deliver. Delivery involves testing out different solutions at small-scale, rejecting those that will not work and improving the ones that will.

The latest iteration of the Double Diamond is available in a PDF document and is explained on the website and a video. Several different design organisations have taken this model and made it their own.

This model now has a fifteen year history. The Design Council has much more on their website about their Double Diamond and how to use it.

Principles for Accessibility Studies

Objects should not just be useful; they should be intrinsically meaningful both philosophically and emotionally. In his paper, Gian Maria Greco discusses the move from separate approaches based on disability to universal approaches. His Principles for Accessibility Studies are a useful take-away for designers and lead to co-design thinking.

Greco follows on from the philosophical work of Rob Imrie and his discussions on the quest for universality. The title of the paper is, Accessibility Studies: Abuses, Misuses and the Method of Poietic Design. Greco concludes the article with a list of principles for design:

1. The Principal of Universality: accessibility concerns all, not exclusively specific groups or individuals.
2. The Principle of Personalisation: one size does not fit all. The design should be able to respond to the specificities of individual users.
3. The Principle of User-centrality: design should focus on users and their specificities.
4. The Principle of Epistemic Inclusivity: users and other stakeholders, including experts, are bearers of valuable knowledge for the design of artefacts.
5. The Principle of Participation: design should be carried out through the active participation of the stakeholders involved.
6. The Principle of Pro-activism: accessibility should be addressed ex-ante, not ex-post.

From the abstract

Accessibility has become increasingly discussed in a range of fields, producing a large number of new ideas, theories, and innovations that have proven to be quite fruitful. A closer look shows that different fields have experienced fundamental changes. There has been a shift from specific accounts to a universalist account of access, a shift from maker-centred to user-centred approaches, and a shift from reactive to proactive approaches.

Through these processes, accessibility has birthed new areas within those fields, that have been gradually converging to constitute the wider field of accessibility studies. The nature and position of accessibility studies has now become a central topic. This ongoing progression of conceptual clarification may bear some misunderstanding and misinterpretations along the way.

In the paper, I first briefly review the principal traits of the process of formation of accessibility studies. Then I address some possible misconceptions; and finally, introduce a first, very general sketch of poietic design, a method proper to accessibility studies.

UD and the interior design curriculum

Inclusion will remain a futuristic concept if we continue to train design professionals without including UD in the curriculum. This was highlighted in a recent survey of interior design students. It showed the majority had no idea about universal design and of those who did, most only vaguely understood it. Students who had exposure to UD were in favour of having the topic in the curriculum, while others said it would interfere with the technical nature of the course and dilute rigour. They also claimed UD would be an unnecessary addition to an already full course. The results were similar to previous studies showing UD awareness is missing in design studies.

The first part of the paper covers the background to UD in detail and will be known to many. The second half covers the method, the results and important discussion. This paper comes from the U.A.E. where most of the universities in the region are run by either American, Canadian or British institutions. The title of the paper on ResearchGate is, Concept Awareness of Universal Design in Interior Design Program in the U.A.E.

Why your website should suit screen readers

Previous posts have explained how screen readers work, but not the amazing things that happen to people who use them. With free screen reading software by NV Access, screen readers are now available to all who need them. This software is so successful that it’s been translated into 50 languages. This means people in developing countries can also join in everyday activities, study and get a job. The video is 12 minutes, but worth the watch because you see the value of why all websites, web pages, and document uploads should be suitable for screen readers. It’s not just about doing “good works” – it’s about expanding your employee base and customer base. Besides, our obligations under the UN Convention require it. NV Access is a charity with a great story to tell.

Social ramps for social inclusion

Inclusion and exclusion in the social environment discussed from the perspective of the Christian Church is a novel approach. Society has social norms and if people don’t fit them they are often ignored or excluded. They ask the question, “If exclusion occurs because of social skill deficits, who has the deficits?” Is it the one who is different or the one who could accept or change their behaviour? Thinking about how we socially exclude due to notions of social ineptness, often without realising, is an important topic. The authors discuss the classic 7 Principles of Universal Design in relation to social inclusion and show how the Church could do better.

The article is available from ResearchGate: Social Ramps: The Principles of Universal Design Applied to the Social Environment. It’s wordy and philosophical but worth a read. By Jeff McNair and Bryan McKinney.

Abstract: This article considers a next step in the application of universal design principles, that being universal social design. Using the idea of “social ramps,” we consider seven principles of universal design from a social perspective. Social skill deficits in persons with disabilities has arguably been the reason for exclusion of persons with disabilities. But if the traditions of those without disabilities leads to the exclusion of those with disabilities, then one must wonder who has the social skill deficits? This is particularly the case from a Christian perspective. This article challenges the reader on a variety of levels to reflect on social practices with an eye toward changes leading to inclusion.

Author: Jane Bringolf

Inclusive Light Rail Project

Like this:

Principles of inclusive design

Like this: