From the Editor: One of our members raised an interesting point with me this week about Changing Places toilets and whether they meet the principles of universal design. This is one of those situations where it isn’t easy to distinguish where universal design ends and specialised design begins. The European perspective is that inclusion is a continuum – a chain of inclusive thinking. At one end of the continuum are universally designed products, services and environments that almost anyone can use. At the other end are specialised assistive technologies and devices such as prosthetic limbs and speech synthesisers. Somewhere in the middle the two intersect. Some people need both specialised and universally designed products and environments.
Universal design needs specialised design for full inclusion
A simple example is ramps and level entries go together with mobility devices – a wheelchair user depends on both for achieving entry to a building. So where does that leave us with Changing Places (CP) toilets? The Changing Places website says their toilets are designed to “meet the needs of people with severe and profound disabilities”. It also says, “It is required that accredited Changing Places facilities be built in addition to and separate from required Unisex Accessible Toilets (see picture of signage). This is to ensure that the needs of both groups of toilet users are met without compromise”. This clearly puts Changing Places (CP) toilets at the assistive technology end of the continuum as as a specialised design for particular users. The toilet is therefore not universally designed because not everyone can use it due to the way it is designed. But CP toilets support universal design because in conjunction with other toilet types in the vicinity they provide equitable access for everyone to the surrounding environment. Consequently, everyone gets the benefits – everyone is included.However, where funds are limited, it would be easy to assume the CP toilet would work for all wheelchair users. Problems would arise with the drop-down grab bars, particularly for people with MS, Parkinson’s and others with balance problems. The accreditation for thesefacilitiesshould be through the Changing Places organisation without reference to the public accessible toilet standard (AS1428.1). The term “Lift and Change” toilets is being used in New South Wales to avoid the copyright issues. However, it leaves it open to misinterpretation of what the toilet is supposed to achieve and who it is for.
Australian Standard
Australian Standard for accessible public toilets (AS1428.1) does not cover Changing Places facilities as such. However, it has provision for “adult lift and change toilets”.The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design produced guidelines in 2024 to merge universal design thinking with specialised design.
Universal Design Guidelines: Changing Places
This set of guidelines comes from Ireland and aims to take the design beyond minimum standards. It covers every aspect you can think of from planning and building control to management and maintenance. The guidelines explain why some things need to be designed or placed in a certain way.The design and installation section is comprehensive. The management and maintenance section includes pre-visit information, staff training, and health and safety. The guidelines are downloadable in different formats. Another excellent resource from the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design.Changing Places (and similar) toilets give families a new freedom to participate in activities, both outdoor and indoor. These toilets facilitate greater participation and inclusion for individuals and families – a principle that universal design fully supports.Jane Bringolf, Editor
At a roundtable meeting following the 2014 Universal Design Conference in Sydney, Kay Saville-Smith shared her experience on universal design and affordability. She was happy to share her five key points about universal design in housing:
“The usual argument is that universal design is consistently unaffordable (by which they mean more costly) than poor design because of the difficulties of retrofitting the existing environment and lack of economies of scale. Actually, the reasons why universal design is seen as costly can add cost. Five points are interesting:
Most products are not designed but driven off existing tools, processes and organisational structures. To change these does require some investment (hump costs) but these are one off and should not be seen as an ongoing cost. Indeed, those changes can bring reduced costs in the long term through increased productivity etc.
The costs of poor design are externalised onto households, other sectors or hidden unmet need.
Comes out of an advocacy approach that pitches the needs of one group against another and treats universal design as special design etc.
Win-win solutions need to be built with the industry participants that are hungry for share not dominant players who have incentives to retain the status quo.
Universal design is different from design which is fashion based. The trick is to make universal design fashionable so no one would be seen dead without it.”
Her keynote presentationprovides more information about why it is so hard to get traction with universal design in housing. The picture is of Kay Saville-Smith.
When researching the topic of disability, how can researchers know if their methods are the right ones? Do all the standard academically accepted methods used in research projects suit this topic? Are they inclusive research methods?
Inclusive research methods: do the right job and do the job right
Researchers with the lived experience of disability are few and far between. Those who do exist are often schooled in the mainstream methods. So how can research methods be tested to show that they are doing the right job? Simple answer: involve people with disability from the start with the design of the research and again in the analysis.
It’s one thing to do the job right (accepted methods), but it another to be doing the right job (the job that needs to be done). The author cautions:
“When doing research as a disabled person studying disabled subjects, it is important to consider your own identity and how it influences your research process. … Simply studying your own disability does not give you a magic insight into the experiences of others…”
The Center for Health Design has published an article based on designing for human needs. It advocates for age-friendly workplaces, person-centred healthcare, ageing in place and active living.
Central to the argument in their report is the application of universal design. “When designing for aging, there are great opportunities at hand to design for ourselves – for every age – for all. An ageing population is not all about Baby Boomers – in 2046 the oldest Millennials will be turning 65.
The Maslow hierarchy of needs (as shown in the diagram) makes an appearance with the claim that designers think about the lower tiers for the young and old and reserve the upper tiers for young and middle aged adults. But why can’t environments support social system, fun, happiness, and inspiration at the same time as being safe?
Universal design is discussed as sustainable design, the triple bottom line, ageing in place, the workplace, and healthcare. The report ends with “…universal design has the potential to bridge the gap between basic human rights and higher human needs – for everyone.” You can download the pdf, Universal Design: Designing for Human Needs – An issue brief on the impact of ageing.
While the political focus is on the NDIS, we are forgetting the National Disability Strategy. This strategy is for all people with disability, not just the few who will be eligible for the NDIS. Consequently, Emily Steel asks, Is the NDIS promoting inclusion?
Her main point is that the processes and outcomes of the NDIS can end up working against inclusion and perpetuating segregation. The NDIS aims to promote inclusion, but its very nature is singling out people with ‘special needs’.
The NDIS is Australia’s response to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But on its own, the NDIS won’t realise disability rights. The model is built on the idea that people with disability are a ‘special’ problem. The National Disability Strategy on the other hand, is about mainstreaming and inclusion. The NDIS is about the individual and the National Disability Strategy is about structural change.
Where Is the National Disability Strategy?
In her article, Emily Steel discusses how the intent of the National Disability Strategy is left forgotten in the wake of the NDIS. To achieve inclusion we need a broad universal design approach to mainstream society. We need both the NDIS and the National Disability Strategy. In addition, we need to consider disability as an aspect of diversity. If not, we are still segregating and marginalising.
Editor’s note: The NDIS supports a relatively small number of people with disability. So what can others expect if they do not qualify for NDIS support? Will the public and private sectors believe they no longer need to take responsibility for inclusion? All the more reason to support the push for universally designed environments, services, products and programs.
The graphic, found on Pinterest, neatly shows the concepts of exclusion, separation, integration and inclusion.
Michael D W Richards presents an interesting article on the need to standardize zoo signage so that everyone can understand, particularly DO NOT FEED signs. He concludes,
“To achieve this goal they should utilise a design which is reliant on both imagery and text to convey a message, with imagery at the forefront of the design. A human hand, an item of food and an image of an animal should be displayed. … When imagery and text is displayed on feeding restriction signs, all visitors benefit. This form of provision should not be seen as excessively catering for the needs of marginal groups. Rather it should be viewed as an approach that represents a heterogeneous society, increasing access to information and enjoyment for all, through engaging signage.”
What kind of signs inform and appeal to zoo visitors most? This was an answer Richards at wanted to know. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods he found the answer. It seems the photographic signs were most popular, but that is not the whole story.
Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo applied the principles of universal design during upgrade and extension works. Changes to the entrance, maps and information, transportation within the park, toilets, benches, tables, and exhibit design and enhancement are explained in a case study. In addition, trained staff are on hand to provide additional help to visitors where needed. Mark Trieglaff explains universal design at the Zoo in his case study.
The improvements are matched to one or more of the seven principles of universal design. The conference paper concludes: “By incorporating the Principles of Universal Design all visitors are offered equal experiences as they interact with the animal, exhibits and each other. Without even realizing barriers have been removed, everyone, regardless of their abilities, has a more enjoyable and inclusive experience.”
The title of the paper is, Universal Design in a Zoological Setting, and is free to download as PDF. It also serves as an example for urban design and place planning.
Abstract. Universal Design in planning for exhibiting animal collections for the public has been a part of the culture of one particular zoo in the US. This paper looks at the steps in designing a zoological park that is universally accessible to all visitors.
The picture is of the South Gate entrance. The parking lot was made level with the kerb to provide a level entrance for all visitors during the upgrade.
In 1998 a group of passionate people came together with the aim of creating a centre for accessible design. They consulted widely and held two symposia, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. The findings from these symposia are documented in Accessible Design in Australia.
For various reasons, the project ended at this point and no further action was taken. However, soon afterwards a small group, led by Dr Max Murray, started the Association of Consultants in Access Australia, (ACAA). This has become the professional body for access consultants in Australia.
Centre for Universal Design Australia has picked up the threads of the original idea to follow through on the aim of having a central point or body for creating an inclusive Australia.
The Norwegian Government has taken the principles of universal design and applied them across all policies to create maximum inclusion. This makes everyone responsible for inclusion at every level – in the built environment, outdoor areas, transport, and ICT. Here is an update to “Norway Universally Designed by 2025”.
In 2008, the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, launched its first Action Plan 2009-2013 with the goal of a universally designed Norway by 2025.
The focus on was on people with disability, accessible built environments and minimising discrimination. The plan covered the actions of the public service and all ministries. “The Government’s work is based on universal design. Universal design is an expression of a value put on equality by society.”
In 2010, Norway amended its Planning and Building Act, among others, to include universal design. The plan is to take a staged approach to upgrading public buildings and spaces.
The Delta Centre was given responsibility to coordinate the actions in Norway’s 2015-2019 plan in 2016. This plan is more comprehensive and covers ICT and communications to a more detailed level. This is in recognition of how we are becoming more reliant on digital applications.
This opinion piece, Universal Design: Is it Accessible? critiques the 7 Principles of Universal Design. Several aspects of universal design are questioned including the terminology and inherent difficulties in understanding the concepts. Jane Bringolf argues that the 7 Principles of Universal Design are not themselves universally designed.
The article was published by Multi:The RIT Journal of Plurality and Diversity in Design. It is also available on ResearchGate.
The article was written in 2008 before the 8 Goals of Universal Design were devised by Steinfeld and Maisel in 2012. These goals have a more practical focus. More recently, the concept of universal design has evolved to embrace diversity and inclusion in their broadest sense.
The beginnings of the universal design movement are attributed to Ron Mace, a polio survivor who went on to be an architect.
Abstract
Designing products and environments to be usable by the majority of people is the underpinning concept of universal design. In some aspects, however, universal design fails to meet some of its own principles. This has resulted in a lack of understanding of the concept, which in turn, has allowed the terms “accessibility” and “disability” to inhabit the language of universal design. Consequently, universal design is bounded by concepts of accessibility, regulations and disability rights, rather than the intellectual challenges inherent in designing for the whole of the population bell curve.
The universal design movement recognizes that making headway is proving difficult and is seeking ways to improve its position. Market research, however, indicates universal design is branded as a disability product and this has implications for consumers, practitioners, and for the universal design movement in general. Discussed are the influence of terminology on the direction and perceptions of universal design, and the dilemmas of applying a regulatory framework as an implementation strategy.
From the Editor: I prepared a 2000 word version of my PhD thesis for easier reading. The title is Barriers to Universal Design in Australian Housing. I wanted to find out what the barriers are and if we could do something about it.
The simple answer is that the industry runs on regulations which holds the house building system together. So nothing will change without regulation. Outdated ideas about market segmentation, general resistance to change, and risk avoidance are key issues. Cost was cited most often as a barrier, but without any evidence of the costs.
The graphic shows that the house building industry is a system with several stakeholders. This system relies on everyone doing the same thing in the same way. The best way to achieve this is through regulation.
The full thesisis available from the Western Sydney University archives. I did my best to make it as readable as possible within the constraints of academic writing.
(FICCDAT is, Festival of International Conferences on Caring, Disability, Aging and Technology.)
Hope I die before I get old
I presented this paper and presentation at the 2011 State of Australian Cities Conference (SOAC). It raises the issues of housing an ageing population in a context of industry believing retirement villages and aged care are the places to put older people. However, the majority of people will age in their current home – a home that is not suitably designed for this purpose. Around 200,000 new homes are built each year – each one a lost opportunity.
The cost of NOT including accessibility in new homes
When talking about the costs of including basic access features in new homes, we should also discuss the cost of NOT including those features.
Download an academic article from the Journal of the American Planning Association, by Smith, Rayer and Smith (2008) that spells out the economic argument using economic methodologies. The key point is that conservatively, a new home built today with a minimum of four different households over its lifetime is 65% likely to have an occupant with a permanent disability. If we include visitors the likelihood rises to 91%. It is often forgotten that people with disability live in families – not alone. This is an open access article.
From the Editor: One of our members raised an interesting point with me this week about Changing Places toilets and whether they meet the principles of universal design. This is one of those situations where it isn’t easy to distinguish where universal design ends and specialised design begins.
The European perspective is that inclusion is a continuum – a chain of inclusive thinking. At one end of the continuum are universally designed products, services and environments that almost anyone can use. At the other end are specialised assistive technologies and devices such as prosthetic limbs and speech synthesisers. Somewhere in the middle the two intersect. Some people need both specialised and universally designed products and environments.
The Changing Places website says their toilets are designed to “meet the needs of people with severe and profound disabilities”. It also says, “It is required that accredited Changing Places facilities be built in addition to and separate from required Unisex Accessible Toilets (see picture of signage). This is to ensure that the needs of both groups of toilet users are met without compromise”.
This clearly puts Changing Places (CP) toilets at the assistive technology end of the continuum as as a specialised design for particular users. The toilet is therefore not universally designed because not everyone can use it due to the way it is designed. But CP toilets support universal design because in conjunction with other toilet types in the vicinity they provide equitable access for everyone to the surrounding environment. Consequently, everyone gets the benefits – everyone is included.
However, where funds are limited, it would be easy to assume the CP toilet would work for all wheelchair users. Problems would arise with the drop-down grab bars, particularly for people with MS, Parkinson’s and others with balance problems. The accreditation for these facilities should be through the Changing Places organisation without reference to the public accessible toilet standard (AS1428.1). The term “Lift and Change” toilets is being used in New South Wales to avoid the copyright issues. However, it leaves it open to misinterpretation of what the toilet is supposed to achieve and who it is for.
When researching the topic of disability, how can researchers know if their methods are the right ones? Do all the standard academically accepted methods used in research projects suit this topic? Are they inclusive research methods?
The Center for Health Design has published an article based on designing for human needs. It advocates for age-friendly workplaces, person-centred healthcare, ageing in place and active living. 
Michael D W Richards presents an interesting article on the need to standardize zoo signage so that everyone can understand, particularly DO NOT FEED signs. 
What kind of signs inform and appeal to zoo visitors most? This was an answer Richards at wanted to know. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods he found the answer. It seems the photographic signs were most popular, but that is not the whole story. 
Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo applied the principles of universal design during upgrade and extension works. 
This opinion piece,
