Jane Bringolf, Author at - Page 93 of 109

Town planning and mental health: a personal perspective

Jason Barr is an urban planner who lives with several mental health diagnoses. He has a unique perspective to share when it comes to mental health and urban planning and design. His article focuses on his personal experiences in different built environments, and how those experiences impacted his mental well-being.

Barr emphasises the need to design for people and not cars, and the importance of minimising urban sprawl. Given the number of people with a mental health condition, this is a useful perspective on mental health and wellbeing.

Barr concludes: “As planners, we all know one size does not fit all when it comes to built environments and how we experience them. Being able to live within a community built for people and not cars becomes even more crucial than the literature already tells us it is. Its real life. I hope my story can be a reminder to planners and designers everywhere that physical health is not the only dimension of our well-being that we need to pay attention to. Equally important is the consideration of how our cities and towns impact those with mental illnesses. I hope my story “drives” that home. Real consequences on real lives. It is my sincere hope that those who are reading this see that, and take these words into consideration as they craft their local neighborhoods, municipalities, and regions.”

The title of the article is: The impact of town planning on my own mental health as a town planner. Published in the Journal of Urban Design and Mental Health. A short and very readable article.

Including children in high rise living

Are high rise developments good for children? This is the key question in a study where children are included in the design of social spaces in high density living. The effects of high rise living on families with children are discussed; the methodology is explained; and tower blocks re-imagined. International examples are discussed and thoughtful design solutions are presented in the conclusions, both within buildings and in spaces surrounding them.

From the introduction: “The significance of the skyscraper typology persists as populations grow, land continues to become scarce, and to defy the detrimental social and environmental effects of urban sprawl. What this typology seems to have denied over many years is its relationship with the child. It has led to a rapid decline of children’s physical activity and independent mobility resulting in increased rates of child obesity and other health concerns as described by psychologists and medical professionals across the country.” The author is Suruchi Modi, an architect and urban designer with a specialisation in Tall Building Design from the University of Nottingham UK. There is a useful list of references at the end.

Language Guide for Journalists and Others

Acceptable language regarding people with disability has changed, and standards continue to adapt as understanding and perceptions evolve. Many terms once widely used are now considered to imply inferiority and serve to marginalise people. The National Center on Disability and Journalism updated their Style Guide in 2021. It provides alternatives to terms still seen too often in the media.

The guide also gives an explanation for why some terms are considered offensive, derogatory, and/or marginalising. Unless the context of the story relates to the disability, it might not be necessary to point to any kind of impairment. And think about illustrations and photos too.

Here are a few common terms to avoid:

Afflicted with: Implies that a person with a disability is suffering or has a reduced quality of life.

Able-bodied: Refers to a person who does not have a disability. The term implies that all people with disabilities lack “able bodies” or the ability to use their bodies well. Use non-disabled. Use person without disability.

Confined to a wheelchair: Describes a person only in relationship to a piece of equipment designed to liberate rather than confine. Use wheelchair user.

Stricken with, suffers from, victim of: These terms carry the assumption that a person with a disability is suffering or has a reduced quality of life. Use living with…

Demented: Refer to someone as having dementia only if the information is relevant to the story and a formal diagnosis has been made. Use “a person with dementia” or “a person living with dementia.” Do not use senile.

Special needs: This can be problematic where there are government funded programs for “special schools”. The term is considered stigmatising – use “functional needs” or describe the specific issue or disability. Everyone has needs.

Inclusive illustrations: What’s in a face?

It’s often someone other than the writer of an article that chooses a picture to go with it. Usually this is a stock photo that might not convey the intended message. Stock photos of older people are often patronising. They show young and old hands, or a young person looking lovingly at an older person. Most illustrations are far from inclusive.

Similarly, stock photos of wheelchair users often use non-disabled models and not real wheelchair users. An article and guideline from an illustrator discusses how to add diversity to your brand whether an organisation, service or a product. The title of the article is, Your Face Here: Creating illustration guidelines for a more inclusive visual identity.

Whether being used to distill complex messages or add a touch of whimsy, illustration is one piece that makes up a company’s visual brand identity.”

Also have a look at these stock photos of older people and see what you think. Note that they are all white and active – no diversity here.

Do’s and Don’ts of disability language

Language etiquette around the topic of disability seems to get some people tongue-tied. Fear of offending often results in just that. But so does using outmoded terms such as “handicapped”. So what are the do’s and don’ts of terminology and language use?

People with Disability Australia (PWDA) have a great guide. It gives a context to the importance of language and how it relates to dignity and respect. It is based on the social model of disability. That is, disability is not an individual medical problem. Disablement is the result of an environment filled with physical and social barriers.

Should you say “People with disability” or “disabled person?” It depends on the individual. However, government policies use the person first version – people with disability. The one to avoid is “the disabled” because it dismisses people and puts this diverse group into one category. The same can be said for “the elderly”.

Adaptations of the word disability, or euphemisms, should not be used either. Terms such as differently-abled, special needs, or handicapable sound clever but are demeaning. Other terms such as “all abilities” suggests the opposite – a special place for people with disability. If it is inclusive it shouldn’t need a “special” title. However, accessible features can be included in any descriptions of the place or service.

The PWDA guide gives an overview of ableist language and its impact, some advice on reporting on disability, and a list of words and recommended alternatives.

Disability is not about inspiration

One other important aspect of reporting on disability is what the late Stella Young described as “inspriation porn” in an entertaining TED talk. The portrayal of a person doing everyday things, or achieving a goal, as being inspiring gets the no-go signal. People with disability are often portrayed in the media as being “sufferers” or “heroes”. Rarely is either the case.

The evolution of universal design and accessibility

Bess Williamson takes a look at two books and reviews them in tandem, which makes for an interesting read in its own right. Both are about the history of disability, accessibility and universal design, but approach the topic from different perspectives. Aimi Hamraie takes a legal and rights view of history, while Elizabeth Guffey tracks the work of individual designers and the development of symbols and images, particularly the access symbol we know today. They show how accessible design was developed in more than one place at the same time, which shows at least two family trees of access and universal design. One from the bottom up (“crip technoscience”) and one from the top down (standards and codes). An excellent and thoughtful review by someone who understands this field of research. The books are:

Aimi Hamraie Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability (University of Minnesota Press, 2017)

Elizabeth Guffey Designing Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society (Bloomsbury Press, 2017). Or from Trove (National Library of Australia).

It pays to be sustainable and inclusive

Interesting results are reported in an engineering and mathematics research paper from Europe on the costs of including both sustainability and inclusive design thinking in dwellings. All costs involved in constructing a home were taken into account: materials, labour, construction, and the running and maintenance costs of sub-components over the entire life-cycle of a home, which is a nominal fifty year period. The authors claim that by taking the cost savings due to efficiency and adaptability of the home, there is a 23.35% reduction in overall costs. Therefore it makes sense to take this path for cost reasons alone: “If it were not for any other reason, like protecting the environment or caring for [people with disability] and for our comfort, there would still be a valid point in using these materials and technologies from the costs’ point of view”. The paper includes graphs and detailed calculation tables. The title of the paper is “Techniques for ensuring cost savings and environment protection in buildings” and is published in Applied Mathematics, Mechanics, and Engineering Vol. 61, Issue IV, November 2018.

Establishing a UD Centre in Australia

From the Ground Up: Establishing a Centre for Universal Design in Australia charts the establishment and development of CUDA. This paper was presented at the UD Conference in Ireland held at the end of 2018. Here is the abstract – the full paper is available online.

Abstract: The universal design movement arrived in Australia well before the turn of the century. A handful of individuals, often working as lone voices, are doing their best to incorporate the concepts into their everyday work and promote the concepts more widely. As is often the case elsewhere, the term “universal design” is misunderstood and confused with special and separate designs for people with disability rather than inclusion for everyone. Compliance to legislated disability access standards has created further confusion and as a consequence many myths about universal design have emerged. Such myths have held back the implementation and understanding of universal design and inclusive practice. Australian governments at all levels have shown little interest in promoting universal design principles, save for a casual mention of the term in policy documents. This is in spite of changes to disability and ageing policies promoting more autonomy and independence for individuals. When political leadership is absent, leadership often defaults to the community, or to be precise, to a handful of people with a passion for the cause. In 2013 a chance meeting of two unrelated individuals set the wheels in motion to establish a centre for universal design in Australia. This paper charts the development and progress of the organisation through volunteer effort, harnessing community support, maintaining international connections, using social media, and establishing a resource-rich website and newsletter.

8 Goals of Universal Design

The 7 Principles of Universal Design are well known in the universal design world. They’ve been used as a guide for many years by design professionals and academics. The IDEA Center at the University at Buffalo took these principles and made them more practical. The 8 Goals of Universal Design are the result.

The 8 Goals help practitioners apply universal design and measure outcomes. They cover functional, social and emotional dimensions.

To find out more about universal design see our free short online course, Introduction to Universal Design.

Slide from the video 8 Goals of Universal Design. — Screenshot from the video below

Briefly, the 8 Goals are:

Body Fit
Comfort
Awareness
Understanding
Wellness
Social integration
Personalization
Cultural appropriateness

The IDEA Center was concerned that the principles were based on Western norms. So they added cultural appropriateness to the list. The 8 Goals can be grouped into three categories:

Human performance
Body fit
Comfort
Awareness
Understanding

Wellness

is the bridge between
them as it addresses both

Social participation
Social integration
Personalisation
Cultural appropriateness

Sarah Davidson gives an introduction to the 8 Goals of Universal Design in the 3 minute video below.

Adapt the words to suit

The wording of these goals can be adapted to suit different design contexts. For example, the Everyone Can Play guide adapted the goals to suit the play context:

Find: Communicate the purpose and location of play elements and facilities
Fit: Provide a range of play opportunities for people of all abilities and sizes.
Choose: Enable exciting individual experiences and social interaction.
Join In: Create opportunities for everyone to connect.
Thrive: Challenge and involve people of all capabilities.
Belong; Create a place that’s welcoming and comfortable.

The 8 Goals offer a framework for practical application, research, and for communicating universal design. They complement the 7 Principles of Universal Design, which still stand as general principles.

The IDeA Center website has more information and some pictures to help explain. Ed Steinfeld and Jordana Maisel devised the Goals in 2012.

The 2020’s have seen a significant shift to the inclusion of users in the design process and co-design methods.

Try out our free online course, Introduction to Universal Design.

Universal design is evolving

The 7 Principles of Universal Design were devised in the 1990s. Steinfeld and Maisel moved us on with the 8 Goals in 2012. In the 2020s co-design is now considered the way to implement universal design. It moves designers on from the checklist approach they use with the 7 Principles.

The term co-design is being used more frequently, but what does co-design mean and how does it work? Well, that depends on the context. It could mean a design group working together. Nothing difficult about that concept. Or it could mean involving end users in the design process. This is where it gets more tricky and more questions arise.

At what point do you involve users? Which users do you involve? Will the users have the required knowledge and experience to contribute constructively? Will designers have the skills to be inclusive and listen to users? Participatory action research incorporates both designer and user learning. But these projects are necessarily long and usually have research funding attached. However, they usually produce knowledge and results useful in other settings.

Some history

black and white photo of Ron Mace. He is wearing glasses and has a beard. He is wearing a light coloured shirt and a dark neck tie

The name Ron Mace is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Universal Design”?

Mace’s last presentation just before his death in 1998 was at the first International Conference on Universal Design. It gives some insights into his thinking and the evolution from barrier-free to universal design.

Mace contracted Polio as a child, and as a wheelchair user he encountered many barriers to studying at university. Nevertheless, he achieved his aim and became an architect. After practising conventionally for a short time, he became a leader in accessible architecture.

In the US, Mace contributed to the first accessible building code which was adopted by North Carolina. This led to other policy and legislative changes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 1989 he set up the Center for Accessible Housing, which became the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University.

Editor’s note: I was fortunate to meet Ron Mace’s partner, Joy Weeber, on my Churchill Fellowship study tou r in 2004. She showed me the video of an interview he gave two days before he died. It helped me understand the history and the passion behind the cause for universal design. Joy, a passionate disability activist gained her PhD in the area of disability identity and family denial of disability in the search for “normality”. Jane Bringolf.

Just what is a hearing loop?

There is a lot of confusion about hearing loops and assistive listening devices. Although public venues should have the loop switched on at the same time as the microphone (because that’s how it works), there are some places that think it should only be switched on if someone asks for it. And then, sadly, all too often, that’s when they find it doesn’t work. But just what is a hearing loop?

Hearing augmentation is not old technology. Technology has improved but the systems remain the same. Andrew Stewart explains the myths in a factsheet, Is Hearing Augmentation Old Technology? The factsheet also includes information about what consumers think about loop systems. The loop system is much preferred as it is discrete. Other systems require patrons to request a device to be worn around the neck, which is stigmatising.

There are more fact sheets on the Hearing Connections website on the three types of hearing augmentation systems:

1. 1. Hearing Loop System
  2. FM System
  3. Infrared System

The fact sheets also cover schools and universities, live performance spaces, aged care facilities, installation and signage guides.

Hearing loops are not just about compliance and human rights – they are good customer service.

Hearing loops are good customer service

When theatre patrons can’t make out the dialogue they stop going. There’s no point. But a hearing loop can bring them back. A hearing loop works with a special switch on a hearing aid. It sends the sound from the speaker directly to the aid. Yes, there are other types of hearing augmentation. But who wants to go to ask for a special device to hang round your neck? Older people generally shun assistive technology because of the perceived stigma. Hearing loops are far more discrete. See this video of a case study that surprised a theatre manager.

Physical Access and Sport

An accessible and inclusive sports club sometimes requires a few physical adjustments to buildings. More than anything it needs some forward planning and continuing commitment. Access for All: Opening Doors is a guide aimed at anyone involved in running or working in a sports club. However, this guide for physical access and sport is useful for any organisation.

For example, there is information on paths of travel and ramps, signage and colour contrast, and types of doors. Other information is specific to entertainment venues such as spectator viewing areas and acoustics. Doors receive detailed information and the difficulties with revolving doors.

The resource covers the main areas of physical access and leads on to other information. It’s down to the detail such as approaches to the building, information and signage, and getting around the facilities.

The Centre for Accessible Environments website has more free publications.

Kicking goals for sport

Playing and watching sport is a major cultural activity in Australia. Joining a sports club or being part of the fan group brings a sense of belonging. Participating in sport has physical and mental health benefits. Kate Anderson and Susan Balandin write about this important topic in “Kicking a Goal for Inclusion in Sports Clubs and Stadia”. The authors take a universal design approach to solutions.

Their book chapter explains how sports providers can promote inclusion for people with disability. Taking a universal design approach they discuss three key areas: spectatorship, membership and employment. You can get institutional access via Springerlink, or you can access through ResearchGate.

From the abstract

Sports participation and fandom play an important role in the lives of many Australians, including people with disability. Participating in sport offers valuable benefits for physical and mental well-being and can enhance a person’s sense of belonging.

In addition to playing sport, people with disability have a right to be included in mainstream spectatorship and fandom activities. Despite this, many sports clubs fall short and give little thought to the inclusion of people with disability as staff or volunteers.

This chapter covers some of the ways in which sports providers can promote engaging and meaningful community inclusion for people with disability. We adopt a universal design perspective to showcase practical inclusion opportunities for people with disability across three key participation domains in the sporting arena: spectatorship, membership, and employment.

Accessibility by another name – does it work?

Norway uses the term accessible to signify solutions specifically for people with disability when not required generally in the population. An interesting distinction by Olav Rand Bringa using his 20 years of experience working in the field of universal design. In his paper says succinctly, “The term accessibility for people with disabilities does not broadcast an understanding of qualities beyond the targeted user group”. Consequently other terms try to compensate for this. However, it is difficult to move away from this term because it is perpetuated in legal and other statutory documents. Bringa writes thoughtfully and incisively about the issues of getting language right in order to get inclusion right. An important contribution to the quest for inclusive societies. The title of the article is, Universal Design as a Technical Norm and Juridical Term – A Factor of Development or Recession? it’s open access. The picture is of the Oslo Opera House.

Abstract: Universal design was introduced as an ideological and technical concept in Norway in 1996 and was introduced in the first law in 2003. Since then universal design has replaced accessibility for people with disabilities in national policies, laws, regulations, standards, projects and everyday language. Accessibility is now used to characterize solutions made more exclusively for people with disabilities or when a high, general quality is not required. Few countries have made this extensive use of the concept of universal design and the concept has faced several challenges from lawmakers, architects, economists, user organizations, entrepreneurs and debaters. This paper reflects on some aspects of more than 20 years of extensive use of the concept of universal design and try to answer the question: Is universal design an academic invention with little extra positive impact compared to accessibility for people with disability, or does the concept defend its supposed role as a step towards a society with equal opportunities for all?

The article is from the proceedings of the UDHEIT 2018 conference held in Dublin, Ireland, an open access publication.

Author: Jane Bringolf

Town planning and mental health: a personal perspective

Like this:

Including children in high rise living

Like this: