ricability logo

 

Inclusive design - products that are easy for everybody to use (view report contents)

Misunderstandings and barriers

So far we have argued that inclusive design makes common and commercial sense. Why is it not more widespread? Some possible reasons are described below.

Design for absolutely everybody?

All disciplines develop their own jargon. Universal design and design for all have been most commonly used. They mean different things and have different historical contexts, but there is no absolute agreement about the differences between them. It is unfortunate but not surprising that some people have been frightened off when such phrases have been taken at face value and interpreted literally. After all "design for all" has a ring that ‘design for as many people under the circumstances as is possible’ does not.

In reality no one argues that every single product should be usable by every conceivable person. Definitions of inclusive design are qualified by a common sense approach to what is reasonable and by an understanding of what is practical. For example, one definition bends over backwards to be realistic at some expense of rhetoric:

Flexible enough to be directly used, by people with the widest range of abilities and circumstances as is commercially practical given current materials, technologies and knowledge. (see reference 15)

There are of course dangers in this approach. The fact that not everybody can be accommodated is no excuse for not attempting to meet the needs of the greatest number

Identical products?

Manufacturers are often afraid that inclusive design would stop them producing distinctive products. The essence of this argument is that products for niche markets would disappear under the dead hand of regulation. One manufacturer exclaims "Design for All? There is no such thing! Could you imagine a pair of shoes designed in such a way that everybody would want to wear them?" (see reference 16). However this objection seems to confuse style with usability. Public buildings have had to be accessible for a number of years, and this has not meant that they look the same. Regulations impose safety and constructional standards on products without imposing uniformity and there is no reason to suppose that making them accessible need be any different.

Elderly people are not a homogeneous group (see reference 17), and every cultural set has disabled members. Designers need to continue to cater for the diverse tastes of the population while ensuring that the greatest possible number can use them.

Limited product development?

Call Barred? (see reference 18) is a report which discusses how developing communication technology might be prevented from excluding disabled people. It accepts that it would not be reasonable to expect every new technology to be accessible from the start, because this could restrict development.

The report makes the point that this does not apply to stable or established technologies which might be expected to be accessible. However, while there are legitimate concerns about inhibiting product development, this does not mean that developers can just ignore the needs of disabled people because they are working on frontier technologies. It would be reasonable to expect that options for making new products accessible would be explored from the conceptual stage onwards, on the grounds that this makes commercial sense.

From then on additional features to make the product usable by a greater number of people could be added as the product develops. A test of reasonableness would seem to be useful here. Kevin Carey, Director of Humanity (a charity which investigates and tackles problems of social exclusion brought about by the information technology revolution), gives an example in which it would seem reasonable to provide screen magnification and voice synthesis with computers but that it might be unreasonable to insist that every computer should come with a refreshable Braille display (see reference 19).

Expensive?

Competition in most developed markets for consumer products is knife edged. Unit costs are calculated and pared to fractions of a penny. Market forces will work for inclusive design only when manufacturers see it as providing them with a competitive edge and a tangible return.

Some claim that inclusively designed products would be more expensive to make and buy. And customers who do not need accessible features would opt for a cheaper alternative (see reference 20). Although the long-term savings in reducing the cost of dependency may make inclusive design a cost-effective investment for society, this argument does not wash with manufacturers who have to pay the development costs.
However for the most part the cost of adding inclusive features can be negligible. The majority of shortcomings revealed by Ricability’s assessments have simple remedies – larger letters in contrasting colours on appliances, larger and better shaped controls with tactile feedback, for example. A Phoneability study which looked at the cost of adding accessible features to telephones (see reference 21) found that 20 of the 44 features identified could have been added at no or minimal cost. Most people’s needs can be met by simple adjustments which use standard and easily available technologies.

Some examples

The Mira Advance Flex thermostatic shower controls were designed to be easy to use by people with limited hand movement. It has sold about 65,000 units and has captured nine tenths of the care home market. Mira are currently developing a new shower with a range of interchangeable controls, including a remote control – an example of extending an already inclusive design to reduce the need for special equipment. They are developing a self contained shower unit which will have similar features and will also be accessible to wheelchair users. They estimate that the development costs of such products can be between half and one and a half million pounds. Mira have carried out market research, consulted with organisations of disabled people and developed their design with a specialist design consultancy. The additional costs of all this at most amounted to under ten per cent of total development costs, and was considered to be a sound investment. They expect the product to appeal to a wide range of people and would expect development costs to be recouped in two years.

Morphy Richards found that adopting inclusive principles did not cost more or compromise design if thought about early enough. There are chunky easy to grip controls on the Morphy Richards Europa Espresso/Cappuccino Maker (see picture below).

morphyrichards cofee maker

The US has mandatory standards for the accessibility of electronic and information technology products bought by federal agencies. Estimates of the additional costs of making products accessible (see reference 22) were calculated to be between 0.2 and 2.8 per cent of the amount spent on information technology. This extra cost was expected to be recouped through consequent savings.

Transport studies have shown that incorporating accessible features at the design stage added some two per cent to overall costs – which was easily recouped through increased revenue (see reference 23). Fiat have begun a process of cultural change which means that the greatest possible range of potential motorists will be considered when designing cars. They do not anticipate that this will need a special budget – it is rather a redirection of thought than additional time which is needed.
Parallels can be found in housing. Lifetime homes are houses which have been designed so that they can continue to be lived in as their occupants people get older. Research has shown than most people value the features built into their homes without realising that they have been built to lifetime standards. They both appeal to everybody and avoid the stigma of segregated accommodation. If lifetime features are incorporated into the design from the start, they cost very little – from between £100 and £300 for a three bedroom house. Moreover lifetime homes make commercial sense – nine out of ten people say they would pay more for the enhanced convenience and safety of these homes. And, over their lifetime, such houses save government, local authorities and individuals money as well as enabling people to live independently for longer (see reference 24)

As Kevin Carey points out, most good design for disabled people, if considered at the drawing board stage, costs hardly anything and increases market share (see reference 25).

No information?

Ambiguity about what is meant by inclusive design, compounded by uncertainties about what is meant by disability has given the impression that accessible design is a highly specialised and difficult field. What is accessible can appear to be an uncertain matter of subjective judgement.

The truth is that applied common sense backed up by a growing body of information and expertise goes a long way. There is no shortage of information about what different groups of people find difficult and carrying out research amongst them can be fairly straightforward.

Examples of published information include product-specific guidance (see references 26 and 27), disability-specific guidance (see reference 28), general guides (see references 29 and 30) and statistical anthropometric tables which provide details of the dimensions and capabilities of different groups of the population (see reference 31). The Helen Hamlyn Research Centre has a comprehensive collection of literature and the I-design project is collecting examples of good practice and details of methodology to guide designers (see reference 32).

However, while clear minimum specifications exist for such things as the dimensions of a door or the height of controls on a lift, there is very little detailed and definitive guidance for product designers in a form which could be converted immediately into engineering specifications. An example of how this might work was research into the design of cash dispensers which produced design guidance into how they could be designed to cater for the highest proportion of people possible (see reference 33). It covered access routes, space, location, signage, lighting, reach, viewing angles, design of screen and keypad and instructions. Similar detailed specifications are needed in other areas.

Conflicts of interest?

It has been argued that inclusive design conflicts with other requirements that manufacturers are obliged to meet. Often these conflicts can be resolved with a little thought. The fact that some child-resistant containers cannot be opened by adults with weak hands has been claimed to be a necessary price to pay for child safety. Yet when research was carried out, several alternative ways were found of making packaging both child-proof and easy-to-open for people with impaired dexterity and strength (see reference 34). A shower designed to be accessible for wheelchair users was found to have a floor which was dangerously slippery for ambulant people (see reference 35) – not a difficult problem to solve.

 

Report Contents

Summary
Introduction
What is inclusive design?
The changing market place

Extent of the problem
Misunderstandings and barriers

Discussion and full recommendations

Pictures of example products
References

Back to top