Inclusive Design in Practice - i~design: Developing Design Tools Information and Guidance

Roger Coleman, Helen Hamlyn Research Centre, Royal College of Art, UK

John Clarkson, Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge, UK

Simeon Keates, Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge, UK

Malcolm Johnston, Design for Ability Unit, The London Institute, UK

Cherie Lebbon, London South Bank University, UK

Scope and Rationale

This paper gives an overview of the outcomes of a three-year research programme into the development of guidance and associated tools, techniques and information to encourage more inclusive approaches to design, in particular by UK industry. It will be of interest to business decision makers, design managers and all those who commission design, brief designers and are involved in the testing or evaluation of designs of products, systems, services and information. It will also be of interest to design students and educators.

Background

At a meeting of senior design mangers held at the Design Council in London in 1997 presentations were made on the implications of ageing populations and disability legislation for design and manufacturing by one of the authors and leading UK product designer Kenneth Grange. The response was 'we see the urgent need to address these issues, but how do we make the case to our boards of directors, and how do we instruct our design teams in order to do so effectively?'

Answering this very practical question became the focus of a three-year research programme entitled 'i~design: inclusive design for the whole population'. The project was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under the Extend QUAlity Life (EQUAL) research framework. The research was carried out by a small collaborative team from Helen Hamlyn, Research Centre at the Royal College of Art, The Engineering Design Centre at the University of Cambridge, The Design For Ability Unit at The London Institute and the UK Design Council.

Aims and Objectives

  1. Develop methods and strategies for inclusive design practice, build a community of committed researchers and design practitioners, and encourage industry uptake.
  2. Provide data on levels of impairment and the relationship of impairment to health condition.
  3. Create a model of capability to enable key decision makers to understand which population groups are included (or excluded) by design decisions.
  4. Understand, from the user point of view, what independence means and how this can be supported by design.
  5. Provide information tools, guidance and other resources to enable the uptake of inclusive design by education, industry and design professionals.

Methodology

As the focus was on providing suitable guidance and information resources to counter design exclusion and enable design for the whole population, the project team worked closely with key information users and also explored, in practical ways, how information users could work with end users to better understand their needs and aspirations - what they wanted to do in their lives. This involved research methods ranging from literature searches to workshops, focus groups, competitions for professional and student designers, and design and evaluation collaborations with UK industry.

Pyramid shaped diagram.
Figure 1: the capability pyramid (after Benktzon)1

[ Figure 1 Description ]

The first two years research delivered a better understanding of how designers use and access information: of the range of suitable user research methods and techniques, and their effectiveness within the design process; of industry barriers to inclusive design and potential business drivers; and of available UK data on health conditions and capabilities. This informed and shaped work in the third year, and in particular the outcomes of the programme and the dissemination strategy.

Discussion

There are many reasons why business and design professionals should engage with universal design. The research identified many obstacles to its uptake that confirmed the validity of the original research question. Industry executives tend to dismiss the idea of universality, as it conflicts with concepts of consumer choice. They maintain that no single product will ever be universal in both usability/accessibility and desirability. Designers are often highly motivated to deliver a combination of usability and desirability, but are constrained by the briefs they have to work to as those commissioning design do not recognise the need for universal design, and also the timeframes in which they work, which are not compatible with conventional research methodologies. Design managers do not sufficiently understand the issues and practicalities to both convince their directors and instruct their design teams.

In attempting to reverse these realities, the research team identified the need for an appropriate 'language' that resonated with all these groups, and for tools, techniques and guidance to support each of them in appropriate and information-user-friendly ways.

The concept of 'design exclusion' immediately communicated to industry partners that they could be losing market potential. This led to a range of methods for measuring, quantifying and evaluating design exclusion at appropriate stages in the design and development process. It also allowed industry partners to identify opportunities for significant cost savings, improving product performance and acceptability and reducing returns and complaints. In the longer run, and in the context of current and upcoming legislation it also offered them a way to protect the future value of their business and avoid the costly litigation which could result from failure to comply.

Horizontal bar graph.
Figure 2: Percentage of UK population at risk of design exclusion (after Gill) 2

[ Figure 2 Description ]

The concept of 'critical users', who can challenge and stretch the design 'envelope' communicated to designers that by identifying the right users to work with they can achieve high levels of usability and acceptability within the constraints of short timescales. Design competitions provided a mechanism for demonstrating this in practical ways through design exemplars and exemplars of user-centred design processes involving critical users. They also provided a tailor made opportunity to investigate how designers use information and the formats in which they find it most usable.

Diagram with intersecting circles.
Figure 3: Single and multiple capability loss (% of UK 16+ population) 3

[ Figure 3 Description ]

Descriptions of health conditions mapped against capabilities written in non-medical language and presented in designer-friendly ways, helped designers to grapple with the spread and impact of capabilities across the population. Supplemented by interviews with disabled and older people giving insight into their daily lives and aspirations further helped designers understand and contextualise factors impacting on the acceptability and desirability of design solutions and technology applications.

Diagram with intersecting circles.
Figure 4: Single and multiple capability loss (% of UK 65+ population) 4

[ Figure 4 Description ]

The concept of 'inclusive design' was further proven to communicate to design managers the sort of incremental and achievable goals that their companies could subscribe to. If user testing and informed evaluation indicates that current ranges of products and services are excluding potential users, then steps can be taken to improve them. Further engagement with critical users can identify opportunities for innovation and market development. This process is iterative in the sense that a company can aspire to inclusivity, in the sense that its products and services meet the needs of the whole population, but recognises the limits of what is achievable, while constantly striving for continuous improvement.

These lessons framed and informed much of the outputs, which have been tailored to meet the needs of these key communities. It is hoped that further engagement with the communities through the maintenance of web resources and future case studies and publications will continue to stimulate the uptake of inclusive design.

Outcomes

As this is a relatively unresearched field the team felt it important to build an international, cross disciplinary community linking, and hopefully empowering, researchers, designers, engineers, design managers and decision makers in industry. It was also seen as important to build bridges between assistive technology and mainstream design. In essence, mainstream design is guilty of excluding large numbers of people from access to products and services, while many assistive devices and technologies do not appeal to their users, and so a central motivation for the researchers was to find ways to focus attention in both areas on the combination of usability and desirability.

In response to this objective, two biennial conferences were established:

  • INCLUDE 5 (2001/3/5/7, etc.) with a focus on business and design, hosted by the Royal College of Art in London 1.
  • Cambridge Workshops on Universal Access and Assistive Technology: CWUAAT 6 (2002/4/6, etc.) with a focus on assistive technology and related ICT research, hosted by Cambridge University.

The intention was to foster links between what had been two distinct and separate sectors leading to sharing of best practice and a progressive merging of activities. Many opportunities for new product and service development were seen to lie in this cross over, that would allow the extension of usability in mainstream products, and bring new players into the assistive technology field.

Three books have been published based on the findings of the research:

  • Living Longer: the new context for design 7 (Coleman 2001) sets out key trends in population ageing, how they are likely to impact on business and society, and advocates appropriate responses by government, education, design and business.


  • Countering Design Exclusion 8 (Keates and Clarkson 2003) offers insight into design exclusion along with methods for measuring exclusion and making rational decisions about design features that may exclude specific population groups.


  • Inclusive Design: Design for the whole population 9 (Clarkson, Coleman, Keates and Lebbon) brings together international perspectives on inclusive/universal design practice. The book is divided into two major sections. Part one sets out the business case for inclusive design, with data on demographics, the implications of legislation, and user life styles, along with case studies of commercial success and innovative design solutions. Part two features best practice and process, methods, and models.

An online 'toolkit' 10 of information to support designers, design managers and design educators was developed to the prototype stage. This is a database of methods, strategies, supporting data, case studies, resources and expertise. The alpha prototype was user tested at INCLUDE 2003 and thereafter tested with a further expert user group. The completed resource is hosted on its website by the RSA (The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), a UK institution well known for its support of the design community and design education. The RSA Student Design Awards has been the UK's leading competition for design students since the 1930s. For the past 15 years a key section in that competition encouraged design for an ageing population. This has been superseded (2004) by a new and expanded section 'Inclusive Worlds', for which the toolkit provides a key resource. In this first year the toolkit has undergone user testing with design students and their tutors prior to its formal launch on June 30, 2004.

A British Standard (BS 7000-6, 2004 11) on inclusive design management has also been drafted by a panel including members of the research team and provides guidance for business and industry. At the time of writing this is in circulation for comments and is scheduled for publication in late autumn 2004. The standard is process-based and sets out to provide design managers and business decision makers with an overview of the how and why of inclusive design, its relevance to business, the cultural change process that is required if businesses are to embrace it rather than pay lip service, and how best to implement and profit from it.

Additional on-line resources for business decision makers 12 and design educators 13 are hosted on the UK Design Council website, to support uptake of the British Standard and to encourage the growth of inclusive design education.

Conclusion

The uptake of universal design will be best advanced through an understanding of the information and motivational needs of those in industry and design who must ultimately deliver products and services that meet the needs of the whole population within the context of current markets and other constraints. Providing these groups with tools and techniques that they can understand, use and identify with is a further and necessary step.

References

  1. The capability pyramid, Benktzon M (1993) Designing for Our Future Selves: the Swedish Experience. Applied Ergonomics, 24, 1, Butterworth-Heinemann, London: 19-27
  2. Design exclusion, based on figures by Gill, J, www.tiresias.org/guidelines/inclusive
  3. Single and multiple capabilities 16+ Clarkson, Coleman, Keates & Lebbon p 243
  4. Single and multiple capabilities 65+ Clarkson, Coleman, Keates & Lebbon p 243
  5. www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/programmes/include/
  6. http://rehab-www.eng.cam.ac.uk/cwuaat/
  7. Coleman R, Living Longer: the new context for design (2001), Design Council, London.
  8. Keates S, Clarkson J, (2003) Countering Design Exclusion: an introduction to inclusive design, Springer-Verlag, London.
  9. Clarkson J, Coleman R, Keates S, Lebbon C, (2003) Inclusive Design: design for the whole population, Springer-Verlag, London.
  10. www.rsa.org.uk/inclusivedesign
  11. Coleman R, Clarkson J, (2004) Inclusive Design in Practice: Developing a New British Standard, Procs. Designing for the 21st Century.
  12. www.designcouncil.info/inclusivedesign
  13. www.designcouncil.org.uk/inclusivedesignresource/

Text Descriptions of Figures

  1. A diagram of the capability pyramid.
    The diagram represents the whole population as a pyramid divided horizontally into three layers: the bottom layer representing the fully capable population, the second layer representing those with reduced capabilities, and the top layer the disabled population. Understanding and including the needs of groups at the top of the pyramid results in better design for all.
    [ Return to Figure 1 ]


  2. A bar chart of groups at risk of design exclusion.
    Based on UK population data, the bars indicate the percentage of the total population represented by each potentially excluded group. In descending order of magnitude these are: children under 16 (c.20%), older people over 65 (c. 15%), people with disabilities (c.10%), left handed (c. 9%), red/green colour blind (c. 7.5%), primary language not English (c. 5%)
    [ Return to Figure 2 ]


  3. A diagram of single and multiple capability loss among the UK 16+ population.
    The diagram is in the form of intersecting circles and demonstrates the extent of motion, cognitive and sensory impairments among the UK 16+ population. Motion impairment is the largest category with 6.2% experiencing it alone, a further 3.9% experience it in common with sensory impairment, 1.7% in common with cognitive impairment and 2.5% with both cognitive and sensory impairment. 0.9% and 1.6% respectively have cognitive and sensory impairment alone, while 0.5% has a combination of the two forms of impairment.
    [ Return to Figure 3 ]


  4. A diagram of single and multiple capability loss among the UK 65+ population.
    The diagram is in the form of intersecting circles and demonstrates the extent of motion, cognitive and sensory impairments among the UK 65+ population. Motion impairment is the largest category with 13.2% experiencing it alone, a further 13.2% experience it in common with sensory impairment, 2.7% in common with cognitive impairment and 6.7% with both cognitive and sensory impairment. 0.8% and 5.3% respectively have cognitive and sensory impairment alone, while 0.8% has a combination of the two forms of impairment.
    [ Return to Figure 4 ]

Top

Main Page | Author Index | Title Index