Accessibility and universal design have arrived in written language. People who can read and write well sometimes forget that not everyone else has that capability. But writing a document or webpage in plain language takes a lot of thought. Doing plain language is a process. This point is well made in a blog article.
Kelsie Acton writes about her plain language experiences in a blog post. As with any new idea, we grow with practice. That’s also one of the tenets of universal design: do the best you can with what you have at the time. Then do it better next time – it’s a process of continuous improvement.
Acton’s article is a great example in itself. It isn’t plain language as such, but it is very easy to read. She explains how she thinks about plain language and the difficulties it poses sometimes. For example, words feel flat – it’s all about facts and less feeling.
Having more than one version of a document is important. Writing in a way to make people think or to express values are difficult to do in plain language. Acton gives an example of this where she takes an emotive paragraph and turns it into plain language.
Acton says that plain language uses:
-
-
- The most common vocabulary possible so that readers aren’t stopped by unfamiliar words
- Active voice, so it is clear who is doing what
- Short sentences
- Headings, lists, bullet points, and white space to make information clearer
- Definitions to introduce readers to complicated vocabulary
-
It makes you think
There is no doubt that writing complex ideas in a straightforward way takes time and effort. Acton says the process makes her think about her own understanding of a topic. Writing in an active voice makes her think about who is doing what. It also makes her think about her relationship to the topic.
So, doing plain language is more than a case of clever wordsmithing. It’s a learning process as well. Kelsie Action’s short article is on the Critical Design Lab website and worth a read. Note the design of the webpage for easy access and reading.
The term ‘universal design’ means different things to different people depending on their experiences. It emerged from the barrier-free movement in the United States. Once it was realised that barrier-free was good for everyone, it was seen as a universal good. Hence the term universal design. 
“undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities, which should require the minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of a person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use, and to promote universal design in the development of standards and guidelines”.
The wrap-around ramp for family members who use a wheelchair seems like a good idea until you see how long it is. A powered wheelchair could manage the ramp, but most people use a manual wheelchair indoors. Imagine pushing someone in a wheelchair on this ramp which looks quite steep.
Nike meets universal design again. They’ve improved their original Flyease design (see below) with a new shoe concept. They’ve found a different way of making the shoe easy to get on and off. Anyone experiencing trouble bending over, difficulty with fastenings, or just needing a speedy on and off will find this design excellent. When they are past their best they would make a great gardening shoe too – slip on and slip off at the door. Like all good designers who take a universal design approach, they’ve improved on their original design. 
Many people struggle with laces, bending down to get shoes on and off, or poor grip because of arthritis. Velcro is still the industry standard for “functional” shoes, but fashion and style seems to have eluded the designers. It is the same with many things that are “good for people with disability”. But Nike has come to the rescue. 
Minimum access standards for the built environment do not guarantee accessibility. Unfortunately, we still have designers who aren’t interested in best practice, only in ticking the compliance box. It also means that access is a last thought and remedies, such as ramps, are tacked onto the “grand design”. But universal design should be the grand design if we want equitable and dignified use by all. 
It 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 
Biophilic design is about the health and wellbeing of building occupants. So is universal design. Biophilic design is receiving interest in design disciplines, but buildings also need to be inclusive. Otherwise the biophilic aspects are lost.
People with disability are often stereotyped and considered “the others” in plans, policies and products. This means we haven’t found the right terminology to cover this diverse group. So we have gradually invented words and phrases as we go. Some terms are OK such as universal access. Others are demeaning or patronising, for example, “differently abled”. Making something accessible also has many variations. It could be a building complying to government regulations. Or it could be something designed with the broadest range of potential users in mind. But saying universal access or something is fully accessible is vague.