Why do built environment practitioners create places that contribute to preventable disease and early death, despite evidence on healthy placemaking? That was the question the Design Council wanted to answer. And you could ask the same thing about access and inclusion. According to their survey of over 600 practitioners, many said they often have to convince clients and other professionals to invest in healthy placemaking. They also found that more emphasis was given to outdoor places than indoor places. Physical activity was given priority over buildings that could support job creation and boost employment rates. Homes were given the lowest priority. Not using available information to inform designs was a major concern. The 10 key insights capture the overall picture that emerges from the report.
There is much to take in with this report as it covers systemic issues, and competing priorities and individual attitudes. There is a web page with the introduction where you can download the report document in PDF.
There’sa related post on this topic: Healthy view of placemaking.
Editor’s note: The same issues are found within the industry in terms of access and inclusion. Many issues are systemic and that means individuals who support healthy inclusive environments cannot make a significant difference if the rest of the system does not support the ideas. And evidence is not the game-changer.
“Inclusive design can help all human beings experience the world around them in a fair and equal way”. This is the definition on the Global Disability Innovation Hub website. Their blog page is titled, “Why inclusive design matters and how we are leading change”. The blog leads up to their new Masters course Disability, Design and Innovation. The course design process included people with disability.
This multidisciplinary course is run in conjunction with the University College London, Loughborough University, University of the Arts and London College of Fashion. International students can also apply. There are bursaries available for UK and EU residents (submission dates closed for this year). Here is a video with a brief overview.
The Disability Innovation Summit will be run alongside the Tokyo Paralympic Games. Call for papers will run between October 2019 and March 2020. Priority will be given to submissions with: a passion to collaborate globally; products and ideas that are ready to go to market, or have the ability to be scaled; and tangible solutions that can impact lives around the world.
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 Mof 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.
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.
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.
The Principal of Universality: accessibility concerns all, not exclusively specific groups or individuals.
The Principle of Personalisation: one size does not fit all. The design should be able to respond to the specificities of individual users.
The Principle of User-centrality: design should focus on users and their specificities.
The Principle of Epistemic Inclusivity: users and other stakeholders, including experts, are bearers of valuable knowledge for the design of artefacts.
The Principle of Participation: design should be carried out through the active participation of the stakeholders involved.
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.
Inclusion will remain a futuristic concept if we continue to train design professionals without including UD in the curriculum. This was highlighted in a recentsurvey 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.
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 Conventionrequire it. NV Access is a charity with a great story to tell.
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.
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.
How likely are university students to disclose their disability? The answer is related to whether the disability is visible. The concern of being stigmatised is real and is a form of exclusion. Of course, if the disability is visible then stigma is already part of the student’s life. A recent study found students with invisible disability will be less likely to make use of the institution’s accommodations for disability. However, if the teaching staff were helpful and accommodating anyway, the need for seeking institutional support was reduced. An interesting and relatively easy read for a thesis.
“Students with invisible disabilities in the current study were less likely to use accommodations and self-disclose their disability status to the institution, and students with visible disabilities had used accommodations more often than their peers with invisible disabilities. Research has indicated that students with invisible disabilities perceive revealing one’s disability status as an important decision because it moves the person from a non-stigmatized identity to a stigmatized one.
“This study also found that when professor knowledge and understanding were well-received, students were less likely to self-disclose. This is consistent with research that has indicated students who did not disclose said they felt they didn’t need accommodations because their professors were helpful and accepting of their disability without needing institutional documentation (Cole & Cawthon, 2015). When students do not feel supported by professors, they are more likely to advocate for their rights and self-disclose to the institution, which occurs more regularly for students with invisible disabilities (Marshak et al., 2010).
Neurodiverse people already know they need to be involved the design of emerging technologies from the very beginning and throughout the process. But this isn’t always recognised by designers. A new paper supports their claims and concludes that neurodiverse users should be engaged as active participants “front and center in the research and design process”.
The ten researchers involved in the project say that Human Centred Design works better than the principles of user-centred design. You will need institutional access for a free read from SpringerLink. However, it is also available on ResearchGate.
The title of the paper is, Designing Technologies for Neurodiverse Users: Considerations from Research Practice.
From the abstract
This paper discusses the perspectives of ten investigators experienced with design of technologies for and with neurodiverse users. Although the advances on emerging technologies improved their potential to assist users with neurodiverse needs, existing methods for participatory design, usability tests and evaluation have been created for, and validated with, able-bodied users.
User-centered design methods are not always well-suited to meet the unique needs of neurodiverse individuals. Therefore, to involve neurodiverse users iteratively in the design process, investigators need to adapt traditional methods from Human Centred Interaction to successfully conduct user studies.
Through an online questionnaire, we identified the experimental designs commonly adopted and the major problems investigators face during recruitment, data collection, analysis and design.
Based on the analysis of the investigators’ experiences, we provide nine recommendations to conduct studies with neurodiverse users, aiming at engaging them as active participants front and center in the research and design process.
Designing software with adolescents with autism
With the right supports and understanding adolescents with autism can make a significant contribution to software design. Applications for people with differing needs is a challenge for designers. So going directly to the users and working with them is the best solution.
An Australian study did just that and found that once participants felt safe they readily engaged in the workshop activities. Participants also learned from their input and engaged with the iterative design process.
The agreed overall goal of all stakeholders was to devise a platform where adolescents with autism could interact and socialise. Designers usually start out with goals in mind, but they used an open-ended approach so that participants could explore their needs to determine their goals for the software. The outcome was a co-designed app for smartphones and smartwatches.
While this article is about software design, the processes and learnings are relevant to other design disciplines. The article uses the term “Autism Spectrum Disorder”. However, the notion of autism being a disorder is challenged by many people with autism. The article is titled Co-designing with Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder: From Ideation to Implementation. It is open access and the researchers are based at James Cook University.
Abstract:
Most co-design-based Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) research is conducted with children and does not involve the participants directly. Studies have shown that people with ASD can take on the co-designer role in early phases of the software design process.
We present a longitudinal study that investigates how adolescents with ASD participate as co-designers in an iterative software design process. In this work, we conducted seven co-design workshops with six adolescents with ASD over eight months.
The team exchanged ideas and communicated through group discussion and drawings. Our findings suggest that: (1) parents, community group and fellow participants play a pivotal role in supporting a longitudinal ASD co-design study and (2) adolescents with ASD are also able to make better design decision over an iterative software design process. These findings should be considered when engaging adolescents with ASD as co-designers in a software design process.