Chap1-Introduction2UD

From sharedprojects
Jump to: navigation, search

Return to eBook main page

Chapter 1: Introduction to Universal Design

The origins of Universal Design and the evolution of the concept

The term Universal Design was first coined by architect Ron Mace back in the 1970s [verify this]. He defined it as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.” The Center for Universal Design, founded by Mace, extends that definition somewhat, stating on their website that “[t]he intent of universal design is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost. Universal design benefits people of all ages and abilities.” At its inception, the concept of UD focused primarily on the built environment; that is, architectural elements and products. Since that time experts in fields such as design, architecture and disability have modified or expanded upon Mace’s original definition, broadening it to areas such as digital technology, learning and services. Some of the other more influential definitions that have emerged include: …[T]he practice of designing products or environments that can be effectively and efficiently used by people with a wide range of abilities operating in a wide range of situations (Vanderheiden, 1997, p. 2014).

…[B]uilding products that are robust and accommodating. Universal designs take account of differences in sight, hearing, mobility, speech, and cognition. Universal Design helps not only people with disabilities, but also any of us when we’re tired, busy, or juggling many tasks (Francik, 1996).



The genesis and impetus for UD arose from a number of trends and developments, some technological, others social and political. In the area of technology and design, the concept of UD emerged from barrier free or accessible design as it became apparent that many features and designs fashioned for people with disabilities, such as curb cuts or lever-handled door openers, had applications for a much wider audience of non-disabled users. The curb cut, the most-oft used example of this concept, was originally designed to allow wheelchair access to sidewalks. However, it soon became apparent that it also provided improved access for baby strollers, delivery carts and bicycles. Another, more recent but now ubiquitous example of a technology developed for persons with disabilities but providing benefits for the wider population is captioning, designed to allow visual access to speech and sound for persons with hearing loss, but now found in many bars are restaurants to provide access to the audio portion of broadcasts when noisy environments prevent access or to diminish the interference of background noise in a social environment.

(sidebar) Did you know that many revolutionary products that have helped form the foundation of our modern technological society were developed for persons with disabilities? Examples include the telephone, the typewriter, email and voice recognition.

Other forces behind the emergence of Universal Design are social and political: the civil rights movements of the 60s and 70s were forerunners of the disability rights movement which mainstreamed the idea of access and inclusion as a civil right. Furthermore, the globalization of markets and culture has led to increasingly diverse societies. Intersecting with these trends are developments such as the aging of the population, the rising rate of obesity and greater comprehension of the relationship between health and design. All these forces have helped promote the need for design approaches that accommodate increasingly diverse and global populations and audiences.

Excluded Populations

As a result of the above mentioned trends, persons with disabilities are not the only group likely to be excluded when designers do not consider access for diverse populations, although persons with disabilities are at the highest risk. A report commissioned by the National Council on Disabilities found that the other groups that risk exclusion when access is not considered in the design of information technology include: • Individuals 65+ years old • Consumers living in low-bandwidth information infrastructures • People who never learned to read • Users of English as a Second Language (ESL) • Tourists and people living in multilingual societies • Consumers living in high-density populations When we design for access and inclusion we increase the potential audience for our products and services. With an increasingly globalized market, designing products that can be more easily accessed by persons from other countries who speak English as a second language or who may not be literate provides significant market advantage over products which do not.

Situational Disabilities

The use of captioning in bars and other noisy environments mentioned above is an example of what has been termed a “situational disability”- a situation where the environment temporary limits an individual’s senses, mobility or cognition. This includes the noisy environment of a bar or restaurant, the inability of drivers to use their hands to safely operate a phone or GPS or to read displays visually. In these cases, assistive technology customarily used by persons with disabilities for access – speech recognition and voice output – allow control of devices through speech or access to information through auditory output.


This highlights a theme we will be repeating throughout this book. Taking a UD approach to the design of products, the Web and interfaces, not only creates designs which are more accessible, it creates a design which is better overall for all users. [doesn’t quite fit with the example of the previous paragraph.]


(New section within same chapter)

Definition and scope of Universal Design

Now that we have been introduced to the concept of Universal Design in the abstract, how do we apply it in the real world? In other words, how do we determine if a product, interface or design meets UD principles? The above concepts are an excellent starting point but a more extensive set of tools are needed for the planning and evaluation of objects and designs in both the built and digital environments. The Center for Universal Design significantly furthered this objective when they published 7 principles for Universal Design in 1997.

The 7 Principles of Universal Design

Their 7 principles of UD, listed below, along with associated guidelines, were developed based on research findings and through the collaboration of a working group of architects, product designers, engineers and environmental design researchers.

They include:

1. Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. 2. Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. 3. Simple and Intuitive Use: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. 4. Perceptible Information: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. 5. Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. 6. Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. 7. Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate size and space are provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of the user's body size, posture, or mobility.

Note that the first five principles are universal in scope; that is, they apply to both physical and digital objects. However, principles 6 and 7 seem relevant to the physical environment only: 6 - Low Physical Effort, 7 - Size and Space for Approach and Use. However, if we consider these principles more thoroughly, we find that they also apply to the digital environment. With respect to principle 6, although the design of a web page or digital interface would have no effect on physical force required for the user to move the mouse (or other pointing device) or press keys on the keyboard, it can have a significant impact on the number of times a user might need to use the mouse or keyboard to find particular information or access a particular control (a form for example) on a site. For example, if commonly accessed areas of a website such as “contact us”, “search” or “my account” are buried 5 levels deep (i.e. 5 subpages down from the home page), it requires significant more effort – movement and clicking of the mouse or tabbing and pressing the enter or return key for non-mouse users – than if it is located on the home page or one level down (i.e. a direct subpage of the home page). Greg Lanier, at the University of North Carolina, adapted or specialized the “7 principles” for a web environment. Echoing what was said above, his guideline for principle 6 is “minimize the number of links or the amount of accessory content that the user must get through in order to find the primary content.” [See if I can find a study that talks about poor software design and rsi or other problems. Or Anecdotally, I know of a certain university that ordered a certain piece of financial software … (find an article of poor design causing RSI)]

Similarly, if we consider principle 7 - “size & space for approach” – from a slightly different perspective, also is relevant to the digital environment. In lieu of size and space as it relates to the human body, consider the size and space of objects on the screen. If we make text, links and control objects on the screen difficult to target or see then we are reducing the usability of the interface. Lanier’s adapted guidelines for principle 7 emphasizes the visual aspect: “Page is relatively scalable and can be viewed on small monitors, cell phone browsers, etc.”


[Sidebar] “Please note that the Principles of Universal Design address only universally usable design, while the practice of design involves more than consideration for usability. Designers must also incorporate other considerations such as economic, engineering, cultural, gender, and environmental concerns in their design processes. These Principles offer designers guidance to better integrate features that meet the needs of as many users as possible.”

The original 7 principles also included its own set of guidelines as listed below. PRINCIPLE ONE: Equitable Use The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. Guidelines: 1a. Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible; equivalent when not. 1b. Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users. 1c. Provisions for privacy, security, and safety should be equally available to all users. 1d. Make the design appealing to all users.

PRINCIPLE TWO: Flexibility in Use The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. Guidelines: 2a. Provide choice in methods of use. 2b. Accommodate right- or left-handed access and use. 2c. Facilitate the user’s accuracy and precision. 2d. Provide adaptability to the user’s pace.

PRINCIPLE THREE: Simple and Intuitive Use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Guidelines: 3a. Eliminate unnecessary complexity. 3b. Be consistent with user expectations and intuition. 3c. Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language skills. 3d. Arrange information consistent with its importance. 3e. Provide effective prompting and feedback during and after task completion.

PRINCIPLE FOUR: Perceptible Information The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities. Guidelines: 4a. Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information. 4b. Provide adequate contrast between essential information and its surroundings. 4c. Maximize “legibility” of essential information. 4d. Differentiate elements in ways that can be described (i.e., make it easy to give instructions or directions). 4e. Provide compatibility with a variety of techniques or devices used by people with sensory limitations.

PRINCIPLE FIVE: Tolerance for Error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. Guidelines: 5a. Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors: most used elements, most accessible; hazardous elements eliminated, isolated, or shielded. 5b. Provide warnings of hazards and errors. 5c. Provide fail safe features. 5d. Discourage unconscious action in tasks that require vigilance.

PRINCIPLE SIX: Low Physical Effort The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. Guidelines: 6a. Allow user to maintain a neutral body position. 6b. Use reasonable operating forces. 6c. Minimize repetitive actions. 6d. Minimize sustained physical effort.

PRINCIPLE SEVEN: Size and Space for Approach and Use Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user’s body size, posture, or mobility. Guidelines: 7a. Provide a clear line of sight to important elements for any seated or standing user. 7b. Make reach to all components comfortable for any seated or standing user. 7c. Accommodate variations in hand and grip size. 7d. Provide adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal assistance. (Reprinted with permission of …..) You can view and download a poster version of these principles at http://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/udi/2011/05/09/newprinciplesposters/. A poster with real-world examples can also be found at: http://www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/pubs_p/docs/poster.pdf

As with the web specific guidelines developed by Lanier, other individuals and project have adapted these guidelines for areas such as learning, communication and services. These areas are beyond the scope of this text.

 


(Section break in same chapter)


Who is the audience – whom are we designing for and why?

Did you know that: … 9% of men and ½% of women are color-blind? … culture affects how people think? … the meaning of color varies with cultural background? … by 2030 the number of older Americans – those over the age of 65 – will double over year 2000 numbers? … font size matters for ease of reading – and not just for older individuals? … a 2010 survey found that 37% of older Americans report some type of disability? … 1 in 5 Americans has some type of disability? … based on 2010 data, 9.2% of American adults have vision problems and 16% of adult Americans have at least some hearing loss? .. . the fastest growing age segment in industrialized nations is 80 years and older?

[get stats on mobile access to Internet] [add more questions?]

A key component of both Universal Design and design best practices in general is user-centered design – designing products, interfaces and environments according to user needs. More specifically, usability has been defined as “the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specific users can achieve specified/particular goals in particular environments” (ISO DIS 9241-11). User centered design usually involves testing the usability of devices and interfaces by direct observation – watching users interact and operate with mock-ups of final products or interfaces. Another method for achieving user-centered design involves the creation of model users or personas, a process for interaction design developed by Alan Cooper in his book The Inmates are Running the Asylum (1998). We will talk about these approaches in the chapters on interaction design and design process (Chap. 5). However, user-centered design often fails to achieve inclusiveness or Universal Design because companies and designers often focus “on able-bodied, so-called ‘ordinary’ users and not on users with permanent or temporary disabilities.” [following section needs rewrite] We can overcome this limitation by developing an awareness of the diversity of users and not simply focusing on or thinking of users based on ourselves or on our own experience “or on findings from market research” (Bjork 129). When we develop products or websites through methods such as interaction design we need to consider a diverse population – the user who uses screen magnification or voice output or who cannot use a mouse. By including a broader range of users, we develop a better product [end of section needing rewrite].

[more on?]

Return to eBook main page

Retrieved from "http://webdevgroupcu.org/wiki/index.php?title=Chap1-Introduction2UD&oldid=97"