that full sized adults or school kids with heavy backpacks would benefit from. I can relate how this would be helpful to folks with impairments—I’m thinking of the times I’ve thrown my back out, when getting into a traditional front seat is a nightmare—but a good design like this is helpful for a much wider audience.As Shyamala points out “Universal design is the concept or approach to be more precise, of making any design accessible and usable by as many people as possible, irrespective of the age, situation and ability.“ However, typically this gets relegated in practice to “designs that are good for people with impairments or disabilities.” When this happens, we all miss out and the UD message is weakened.
The reality is that many designs are what they are because of historical technological limits or for no better reason than a lack of comprehensive thought being applied during the design process. Also at play is the consumer preference for low price over quality of design and construction, even thought the two are not inherently in conflict. I think affordability should be the eigth UD principle.
When we focus only on accommodation, rather than universal benefit, we unfortunately undermine the full promise of UD. As unpleasant as it is, the reality is that things that are seen solely as accommodations for those with disabilities will wind up being marginalized by a large proportion of the population. On the other hand, if the same designs are seen simply as “easier to use” they will get wider appeal and acceptance. Best to think of UD as a movement to create a more functional, flexible, intuitive and forgiving environment for all of us. If that were achieved, the need to make physical modifications to homes would be greatly decreased.
3 comments:
Good points about the marginalization that occurs when the language reflects that Universal Design arose out of the Disability Rights Movement era.
Sometimes that is a strategic choice to stay grounded in history or reach a PwD audience. Sometimes it distances - especially when trying to communicate with those who become disabled through the processes of aging and so rarely if ever see themselves as culturally part of the disability community.
Europe has taken to referring to Inclusive Design to address that and emphasize the user in the process of design (which, historically, is a re-assertion of the Disability Rights motto "Nothing about us without us.")
When we talk about Inclusive Tourism and Inclusive Destination Development requiring Universal Design we are thinking within the Active Aging and Livable Community mindsets to emphasize that inclusion through UD in the home "leaking out" into the public sphere is the fully inclusive way to guarantee aging in place.
Here is a project that shows hoe the idea is applied in various places around the world:
http://geotourism.changemakers.com/en-us/node/21221
I agree that often Consumers prefer low price over quality of design and construction, even thought the two are not inherently in conflict. Thus, affordability should invariably be the eigth UD principle.
All benefits of UD may end up being of no help due to higher price. An awareness movement to reject things that are not based on UD would pressurize producers to innovate with UD as its USP!
regards,
Subhash C Vashishth
Thanks for your posting David. This is not the first time I've heard this argument about universal design. In fact, to see the light of awareness switch on in those responsible for mainstream design ("hey, UD isn't just good for persons with disabilities, it's good for everyone!") is an oft repeated pleasure to those of us in the disability field who too often run into the barriers created designers who misunderstand 'affordability' and the true costs of things - using it as an expediency for the much simpler / lower quality approach of designing for 'average'.
What is often missed by people who look at the expense of designing for persons with disabilities are the hidden dividends of having solved many 'mainstream' UD challenges on the way. Accessibility and built-in 'accommodations' to persons with disabilities turns out, in retrospect, to have been usability on steroids. Aiming your design efforts towards people with disabilities - as illustrated in the personas you referred to - often solves many design challenges on the way, and is how we end up with high quality solutions for the much broader population (UD). An example is simple curb cuts - designed for wheelchair users, but appreciated by parents with baby strollers, skateboarders, and workers using dollies to transfer goods from their truck to the store. The first practical use of the transistor was for a hearing aid. The highly efficient and usable cash register pictograph interface was initially designed for use by people who could not read or use text-only based machines. Even something as simple and ubiquitous as the keyboard was developed by a person who wanted to receive love letters from his blind lover. There are many (MANY!) other examples of well designed products and systems in mainstream use that appear to have been 'universally designed', but in fact were initially targetted for persons with disabilities - to 'accommodate' them.
If you think closely about it, this makes sense. Of course a door handle designed to be used by someone with no hands will be easier to use by everyone else. Personally, I don't begin the process thinking of the principles of UD. I begin with users, recognizing that humanity's members are incredibly diverse, and that if I can design a product, system, or service that 'even' Helen Keller could use independently, then I've designed something of truly high quality.
Yes, it's more challenging and difficult. Yes, it's demands much more knowledge, skill and creativity. Yes, it's much more complex, but the alternative doesn't progress, it lessens the craft.
Universal Design isn't the end, it's the means - or at least one means - towards truly serving the user in all his or her diversity.
Post a Comment