Researchers like to have a set of defined terms for their field of work. It makes communicating with each other clearer and easier and for comparing studies. But when similar concepts begin from different origins, different terms are coined depending on the context.
Universal design is a concept that falls within the field of social science. As such we can expect different terms for the same and similar concepts. Regardless, the participation of all is the ultimate goal.
Societies are not fixed in time and consequently, terminology moves with it. So rather than debate the terms, we should accept and group the different terms as seeking the same outcomes. The concepts have been around for more than thirty years, but there is still significant confusion in how to apply them.
Three Swedish researchers propose a harmonised model and the synergies they create. In their paper, the researchers explore how the concepts of accessibility, usability, and universal design have developed. They explore how these concepts relate to and complement each other to create a 21st century view.
Accessibility: person-environment interaction
This approach implies that problems should be expressed and solved from a person-environment relationship. It is based on norms aspiring to meet the needs of most and underpins standards. As such, accessibility is measurable in terms of dimensions and specifications. It has roots in human rights legislation.
Usability: user perspectives on interactions
This term has found its way into policy documents, legislation and regulations. This definition highlights the importance of functionality and user experience. Practitioners in the field of of digital technologies often use the term user experience. In the case of people with vision impairments this has been a key driver of digital designs.
The International Standard ISO 9241-11 describes usability as the “extent to which a product, a service and the built environment can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use” (2018).
Usability cannot be measured in the same way as accessibility because it relates to personal experience. It is expressed by how the design enables people use the product or service.
Universal design – value based vision
Universal design is gaining global prominence as more people are taking on board the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The concept is presented as the overarching principle in the CRPD. It provides a basis for a national commitment regarding everything new that is created in society. In the English-speaking world the concept is used both as a verb (to design) and a noun (a design).
Universal design is a value-based concept that takes a broad view of society. It is both a vision and a process. It is most often understood as being about people with disability. But this is misleading.
The definition in the CRPD makes it clear that the concept concerns all people. It is about a diversity of thought and all human functions fall under this concept. Universal design is not a sub-category of design or special process. It is intended to be an integral part of ordinary design.
The concept of universal design has been confused with the definition of accessibility in policy documents. Hence the hybrid term “universal access”. Citing universal design as a standard or regulation is against the original intent. Accessibility and usability are tools for translating universal design into practice at individual, and societal levels.
What does this all mean?
The researchers offer a thoughtful way forward by merging the concepts of accessibility, usability and universal design. While they come from different origins, they have evolved. Universal design must have accessibility and usability as a minimum for people with disability. However, these concepts alone are insufficient for full participation.
The title of the paper is, Accessibility, usability and universal design – still confusing? Harmonisation of key concepts describing person-environment interaction to create conditions for participation. A really useful discussion that should help readers understand how and why we keep getting in a terminology muddle. And also, why we must integrate the concepts and focus on process rather than product.
From the abstract
We describe recent developments, how the concepts relate to and complement each other, and the synergies they create. We argue that definitions are crucial and that the concepts can be combined and harmonised in a synergistic entity. The participation of all is the ultimate goal of society.
Universal Design is the value-based vision and approach to design grounded in human rights that, through intersectionality and involvement, should permeate all aspects of society to create the best possible conditions for participation for all citizens. We propose a harmonised model where the concepts are explicitly defined and closely connected, with each other.