Assessing the Benefits of Universal Design in Fast Food RestaurantsGary Scott Danford, Ph.D., Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Universal Design and the Built Environment at Buffalo, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, USA There is an emerging consensus about the seven Principles of Universal Design that define universally designed products and environments as being (1) equitable in use, (2) flexible in use, (3) simple and intuitive to use, (4) easy to perceive, and (5) tolerant of error as well as (6) requiring low physical effort and (7) being better sized and arranged to accommodate all users (Connell, et al, 1997). To examine several of these claimed benefits of universal design, this research study tested three hypotheses:
Research DesignThis research project created three "virtual" fast food restaurants for study (i.e., universally designed, ADAAG compliant and ADAAG non-compliant) that were composites of building features found at four "actual" fast food restaurants. The individual building features at each "actual" restaurant visited varied in their inclusiveness to avoid any "halo effect" (i.e., a bias introduced when one attribute of a situation influences a person's reactions to all other attributes) that could be introduced by a building's conspicuously consistent attention (or inattention) to enabling the inclusion of all users (Danford, 2003). Diverse populations were recruited for this case study to reinforce the point that universal design is not synonymous with accessible design. To test the projects' hypotheses, 96 paid participants were initially recruited in three categories: (1) 32 adults with children in strollers, (2) 32 adults simulating new temporary mobility impairments and (3) 32 adults without impairments. Of the 32 adults simulating new temporary mobility impairments requiring first time use of assistive technology, 16 wore a leg brace that partially immobilized one knee and 16 used a manual wheelchair. To enable examination of the consequences of such inexperience dealing with mobility impairment, a fourth category of paid participants was also recruited: 16 adults with permanent mobility impairments who were experienced users of wheelchairs. Procedurally, each paid participant met two project team members in the parking lot of the "actual" restaurant the participant was assigned to visit where written informed consent was obtained. Each participant then used design features specified by one project team member while the second project team member used a concealed digital camcorder to unobtrusively record them participating in a sequence of nine tasks: (1) approaching the building, (2) entering the building, (3) self-serving, (4) purchasing, (5) circulating, (6) sitting, (7) entering a restroom, (8) exiting the building and (9) departing from the building. Each participant encountered a specific combination of universally designed, ADAAG compliant and ADAAG non-compliant building features in each restaurant - i.e., the anticipated inclusiveness of each building was neither uniformly good nor uniformly bad . "Environmental Perceptions" as Indicators of a Building's Relative UsabilityIn the parking lot at the end of the visit, each paid participant was verbally asked four "environmental perceptions" questions about each task performed in the fast food restaurant. These questions were simplified derivatives of the previously validated (with NIDRR funding) Environmental Utility Measure (Danford & Steinfeld, 1999) (Steinfeld & Danford, 2000). The Environmental Utility Measure (EUM), examines users' subjective reactions to their functional experiences in the built environment (e.g., perceptions and attitudes about those experiences' ease/difficulty and acceptability). That measure includes two conventional seven-point bi-polar rating scales (scale values ranging from -3 to +3) called the Difficulty Rating Scale and Acceptability Rating Scale that are typically each presented in both verbal and printed forms in two steps. Using the Difficulty Rating Scale the investigator first asks the participant whether the task is "easy," "difficult" or "somewhere in between" (i.e., moderate). After the initial choice between these three anchor points is made (e.g., "easy"), the interviewer then asks the participant to choose between the three closest points on the seven-point scale that pertain to that initial choice (e.g., "very easy" which is rated +3, "moderately easy" which is rated +2, or "barely easy" which is rated +1). The Acceptability Rating Scale is employed in a similar manner. For this study, only the first step of both scales was employed to save time in the field and the language used to present the three anchor point choices for both scales was provided only verbally. The specific questions asked were:
The anchor point choices were rated +1 for "easy" and "acceptable" answers, -1 for "difficult" and "unacceptable" answers, and 0 for "somewhere in between" answers. Immediately after asking these four questions about the perceived usability of the restaurant just visited, the investigator asked each participant a second set of four questions probing their "general attitudes" about the typical usability of "most other fast food restaurants" (i.e., non-universally designed buildings) while the second research team member continued videotaping the question/answer process. This made it possible to compare the participant groups' general attitudes about the usability of non-universally designed buildings. Posing questions that were again drawn from simplified derivatives of the aforementioned Environmental Utility Measure, each paid participant was asked:
The anchor point choices were rated +1 for "easy" and "acceptable" answers, -1 for "difficult" and "unacceptable" answers, and 0 for "somewhere in between" answers. "Functional Performance" as Indicators of the Case Study Building's Observed UsabilityThe video recording of each participant's behavior while performing each of the nine tasks in the restaurant was later scored employing simplified derivatives of a previously validated (through NIDRR funding) Functional Performance Measure (Danford & Steinfeld, 1999) (Steinfeld & Danford, 2000). The Functional Performance Measure (FPM), examines consumers' observed behaviors while actually performing tasks in the built environment (i.e., effort expended and assistance received while performing a task).That measure includes two eight-point uni-polar scales called the Level of Effort Scale and the Level of Assistance Scale. For this study, only five or six of the original eight points on the effort and assistance scales, respectively, were applicable. The Level of Effort Scale scores were determined by (1) whether the opportunity to perform the task was accepted and, if so, (2) whether the task was successfully completed, (3) the number of attempts made to complete the task, (4) the length of time taken to complete the task, (5) the frequency of any interruption in continuity while performing the task (e.g., hesitation or backtracking) and (6) the frequency of any complaint (e.g., verbal or non-verbal expression of frustration, aggravation, inconvenience or anxiety). The assigned Level of Effort scores ranged from minimum = 1, moderate = 2, maximum = 3, impossible = 4, to declined = 5. The Level of Assistance Scale scores were determined by (1) whether the opportunity to provide assistance was accepted, (2) whether assistance performing the task was requested or received, (3) whether the assistance was provided successfully and, if so, whether the assistance received (4) constituted direct performance of the task, (5) merely facilitated performance of the task or (6) was only incidental to performance of the task. The assigned Level of Assistance scores ranged from none = 0, minimum = 1, moderate = 2, maximum = 3, impossible = 4, to declined = 5. These scores made it possible to compare the level of usability actually experienced by the various groups of participants. The highest level of usability was defined as minimum effort expended (i.e., a score of 1) and no assistance received (i.e., a score of 0). Research FindingsConsidering participants' perceptions and attitudes (i.e., difficulty of use and acceptability) in combination with their observed transactions in the fast food restaurants (i.e., levels of effort and assistance required), analyses of these data offer broad support for this research project's three hypotheses. They indicate that, in general, the "virtual" universally designed fast food restaurant was more usable than the "virtual" ADAAG compliant restaurant which was more usable than the ADAAG non-compliant restaurant. And there were also predictable differences in the usability of each "virtual" building by participants in the four aforementioned categories. Participants in the "adults without impairments" category experienced virtually no problems using any of the three "virtual" buildings. Participants in the "adults simulating new temporary mobility impairments" category predictably had experiences using the three "virtual" buildings that were similar (but hardly identical) to those had by participants in the "adults with long term permanent mobility impairments" category. Even though participants in the "adults with long term permanent mobility impairments" category were clearly more adept at using their wheelchairs in all three "virtual" buildings, the data suggest that they were sometimes more intolerant of design attributes that made certain building features more difficult to use than were the participants who were simulating mobility impairments. ConclusionUniversal design is an approach to the development of "products and environments that can be used effectively by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design" (North Carolina State University, 1997). Its goal is designs that can approach two ideals: "universal usability" (i.e., designs that are usable by everyone) and "equal usability" (i.e., designs that do not privilege one person/group over another). Practically speaking, that goal is clearly unattainable in any "absolute" sense. There will always be someone for whom an environment is not equally usable. Consequently, universal design can be more accurately characterized as a continuous, iterative process that approaches those ideals asymptotically. And the reason is simple: with each iteration, with each lesson learned and with each success achieved, the inclusive aspirations underlying universal design's ideals grow higher and the potential for reaching those ideals through new technology and design innovation becomes greater. ReferencesConnell, B, Jones, M, Mace, R, Mueller, J, Mullick, A, Ostroff, E, Sanford, J, Steinfeld, E, Story, M, & Vanderheiden, G (1997). The principles of universal design: Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: The Center for Universal Design. Danford, G.S. (2001). Principles of Universal Design. In G.S. Danford & B. Tauke (Eds.) Universal Design New York. New York: New York City Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities. 19-24. Danford, G.S. (2003). Universal Design: Evaluation of a Model Building by Persons with Vision, Hearing and Mobility Impairments. Amy Horowitz & Cynthia Stuen (Eds.), Special Issue on Aging and the Senses, Generations. Vol. XXVII, No.1 (Spring), 91-94. Danford, G.S. & Steinfeld, E. (1999). Measuring the Influences of Physical Environments on the Behaviors of People with Impairments. In E. Steinfeld & S. Danford (Eds.) Measuring Enabling Environments. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 111-137. IDEA Center (2001). Principles of Universal Design. In G.S. Danford & B. Tauke (Eds.) Universal Design New York. http://www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea/publications/udnypub.htm Steinfeld, E. & Danford, G.S. (2000). Measuring Handicapping Environments. In G. Gresham (Ed.) Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement: The State of the Art in the Year 2000 (Special issue), Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, Volume 4:4, 5-8. North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design (1997). What is Universal Design? www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm |