As technology races ahead we need to be thinking quickly about policy development, and ethical questions related to artificial intelligence and the level to which it can affect our lives for good and perhaps not so good. Monash University has produced an 11 minute video in which several speakers have their say on the topic of automation and artificial intelligence. Good points are made from both an ethical perspective and a practical perspective. One point not mentioned is whether all such technology will be inclusive for all users.
Category: Policy and Policy Development
e-Learning for everyone
E-learning is taking off in this new digital age. Shane Hogan from Centre for Excellence in Universal Design based in Ireland shows how to make sure the maximum number of people can access and participate in e-learning programs. Using the example of creating e-learning for the public sector on disability equality training, Shane explains the steps they took in the development, and the ways in which content was presented. For anyone involved in e-learning, the 18 minute video is well worth watching to the end. He also addresses employee industrial issues and concerns over privacy and successful course completion.
Gender Inclusive: Designing forms for everyone
Do any of your written or online registration forms ask for a gender specific title such as Ms or Mr? Or female, male? If so, you might want to think about being more gender inclusive. You might also want to consider whether this information is really necessary.
Sabrina Fonseca has written a very interesting article, Designing forms for gender diversity and inclusion. The focus is on designing surveys and marketing materials and whether the collection of gender information is really necessary, and if it is, how can you be inclusive?
Fonseca did some of her own research within trans and gender non-conforming (GNC) communities to come up with some good gender question recommendations. Giving people a really good reason for asking their gender is a start. If you can’t then probably you shouldn’t ask the question.
Fonseca includes an example of a complex form asking for a lot of statistical detail. This is the kind of form governments use. She says,
“Be transparent, explain what exactly you are asking about, and how it will benefit them. Reassure that your organization strives to be inclusive of everyone so they can feel welcome and protected while disclosing their information. As with any form field, if there isn’t a clear benefit to the user, you probably shouldn’t ask about it.”
A great comprehensive look at some of the issues trans and gender non-conforming people face when filling out forms and identity documents. This article was posted on the uxdesign.cc website.
Universal Design vs Specialised Design
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 UD 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.
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, there are concerns that where funds are limited, it would be easy for the uninitiated to assume the CP toilet would work for all wheelchair users. In that case, there would be problems 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 CP toilet is supposed to achieve and who it is for.
Australian Standard for accessible public toilets (AS1428.1) does not cover CP facilities. And not all adult lift and change toilets are accredited by the Changing Places organisation. Hence this leaves it open for a non-accredited Changing Places/ lift and change toilet to be installed without a companion accessible toilet nearby.
CP toilets give families a new freedom to participate in activities, both outdoor and indoor. In this respect these toilets facilitate greater participation and inclusion for individuals and families – and this is a principle that universal design fully supports.
Jane Bringolf, Editor
Universal Design, Affordability and Cost in Housing
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 presentation provides more information about why it is so hard to get traction with universal design in housing. The picture is of Kay Saville-Smith.
Ask Me: Inclusive research methods
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?
Researchers with the lived experience of disability are few and far between, and then they 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 title of this academic paper indicates a very academic approach to the subject, but further into the article, the writing becomes more accessible: Problematizing Reflexivity, Validity, and Disclosure: Research by People with Disabilities About Disability, by James Sheldon, University of Arizona. The paper also discusses the LGBTQ community as another disenfranchised group when it comes to research.
Universal design: designing for human needs
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.
You can visit the Health Design website for more topics and information.
Prosperity for All: another aspect of UD
The Inclusive Growth Commission in the UK recently published the findings of an enquiry into how the UK can achieve inclusive growth. The Design Council’s article about the findings outlines the key challenges in the report as:
- Creating high wage, high value-add jobs across the country
- Designing resilient inclusive places
- Creating governance systems fit for the modern era
There is an emerging global consensus that inequality not only has a social cost, but that it also hampers long-term economic performance and the productive potential of people and places. This would include mature age workers and people with disability.
You can see the full article by the Design Council, How Design Can Help Inclusive Growth. The Inclusive Growth Commission is an independent organisation set up to understand and identify practical ways to make local economies more economically inclusive and prosperous. Download their final report from their website.
Editor’s comment: It is interesting to note there is such a thing as an Inclusive Growth Commission. While the Design Council article does not specifically mention universal design, it is alluded to in the second point above. This emphasises the importance of thinking about designing for inclusion alongside other factors. Too often inclusion is treated as an add-on factor instead of integral to the project. Jobs, healthy lifestyles, inclusion and economics are all impacted by design processes and design outcomes. This is particularly the case at the local level where real lives are lived. The helicopter view of planning needs to be questioned. Our lives are not an abstract construct.
Is the NDIS promoting inclusion?
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.
The title of her article is, Different, not ‘special’: realising disability rights through inclusion in all sectors.
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.
Zoo signage everyone can understand
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.”
The title of this article is Designing Accessible ‘Do Not Feed’ Signs for Zoological Gardens. It is part of a series about zoo accessibility.
Photos or Pictograms?
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.
The title of the article is, Directional Zoological Signage Image Preferences: An Inclusive Design Perspective.