The real value of taking a universal design approach is the way it draws everything together. But usually different parts of an organisation have different inclusion policies. These are often treated as an add-on for a special “inclusion department”. But inclusion is everyone’s business. That means one policy across the board. So, where to start when trying to bring a cohesive approach? What about a universal design policy that overarches other policies?
Norway was the first to devise such a policy more than twenty years ago. It has evolved to include all aspects of life. It drives all other policies. Here are three documents to help you get going.
Norway Universally Designed 2025is an action plan for implementing universal design throughout the built environment as a start. The document is evolving and now includes just about everything including communications technology. They key was to look at policies first and make everyone responsible. This one is good for planners.
The European Union devised a documentthat has as a useful framework with action points for 15 domains. It was devised some years ago, but the concept of universal design hasn’t changed much since then. A page from an earlier European Union document encapsulates the key points in one page.
For a more comprehensive approach, the Sustainable Development Goals are also useful. This is because they include social sustainability and the need to be inclusive.
How can design be fair to everyone? Is it even possible to design for everyone? The authors of Just Design argue that justice and fairness in design is not about the output but about the process. Inclusion is more about the social context rather than the design of a particular thing.
The authors’ arguments are not new to practitioners and advocates of universal design. They understand the context of inclusion is also about the participation of users with a range of disabilities.
Discussions and decisions between different users help solve the fairness issue. So their argument that making things inclusive can end up still excluding some people while true, is not well encapsulated in some of their examples. The example of a museum entrance below is thought to be universally accessible. However, users tell another story.
Note on the imageof a stepped entry: Sometimes called “stramps” – a mix of steps and a ramp are the opposite of accessible and universal design. There are no safeguards for wheelchair users who run the risk of running over the edges as the ramp section is not clear. It does not comply with Australian legislation.
Integrated steps and a ramp so they cross over each other is an obvious nightmare for someone who is blind, or has perception difficulties, or needs a handrail on all steps. A consultation with users would have produced a different design solution that would be considered fair. They then add the example of a child’s wheelchair – an item that is by its very nature a specialised design. This device cannot fall under the universal or inclusive design flag, but it does allow participation and inclusion in environments designed to accommodate wheeled mobility devices.
Understanding user feedback mechanisms
It is not clear whether the authors understand the role of user feedback and the iterative nature of designing universally. The aim of authors’ discussion is to propose a theory based on justice and fairness of universal and inclusive design. Their references include the thinking of product designers, as well as built environment designers.
And then there is another aspect of justice – access to the court process and legal proceedings.
Equitable access to justice in courts
Justice systems and courthouses are scary at the best of times – even when you haven’t done anything wrong. The processes and places are foreign to most of us. Interacting with the justice system is very stressful – even more so for people with any kind of disability. It’s the same for people who come from a migrant community. Equitable access to justice is yet to evolve.
The relatively new Brisbane Courthouse has attempted a degree of accessibility. However, much of it is compliance-based and added as an afterthought. This image is of the judges bench in the Supreme Court.
This image of the defendant’s dock shows a ramp entry. However, when the door is opened the fittings block the entryway.
The newly published guidelines for access to justice for persons with disabilities is available on the United Nations Human Rights web page. It gives the background and a summary of the consultation process. The title of the document is, International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities. The document was developed in collaboration with disability rights experts, advocacy organisations, states, academics and other practitioners. There are ten principles, each with a set of guidelines for action.
Ten Principles for people with disability
1. All persons with disabilities have legal capacity and no one shall be denied access to justice on the basis of disability.
2 Facilities and services must be universally accessible to ensure equal access to justice
3 Children with disabilities also have the right to appropriate procedural accommodations.
4 People with disability have the right to access legal notices and information in an accessible manner on an equal basis.
5 People with disability are entitled to all substantive and procedural safeguards and States must provide the necessary accommodations to guarantee due process.
6 People with disability have the right to free or affordable legal assistance.
7 People with disability have the right to participate in the administration of justice on an equal basis with others.
8 People with disability have the right to report complaints concerning human rights violations and crimes and be afforded effective remedies.
9 Effective and robust monitoring mechanisms play a critical role in supporting access to justice for people with disability.
10 People working in the justice system must be trained on addressing the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular in the context of access to justice.
