"Criticality & Choice"
By Prof. Hubert Froyen

Prof. Hubert Froyen

n Crisp & Clear N° 13 Oct 2000 the editorial staff focuses on the Information Society Technology. Two representatives of two major telecom manufacturers are interviewed about Design for All. At first glance their overall comments seem contradictory. Says Christian Lindholm (Nokia's Director for User Interfaces): "Design for All? There is no such thing! Could you imagine a pair of shoes designed in such way that everybody would want to wear them?"

Bruno von Niman from Sweden's major telecom manufacturer, Ericsson, gives a more diplomatic answer when he says: "I prefer not to address any specific user group. Instead, we always do our best to consider the needs of the entire target group".

But far beyond words and statements there are of course, the real world applications, in the case of mobile phones, manufactured by both companies. These are more similar than would be admitted in theoretical statements. So what's the point?

Many conclusions can be drawn, but most probably neither the concept, nor the context, nor the strategies toward 'inclusive and integral design for all' are clear.

Let us, for the sake of argument, avoid the term "... for all" and call it Universal Design, as North Americans do. See if the description fully covers European expectations and goals in the same field.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN, aspects of concepts

Jane Alexander, in her introduction to "Strategies for Teaching Universal Design"(1)

"The concept of Universal Design goes beyond the mere provision of special features for various segments of the population. Instead it emphasizes a creative approach that is more inclusive, one that asks at the outset of the design process how a product, graphic communication, building, or public space can be made both aesthetically pleasing and functional for the greatest number of users.

Designs resulting from this approach serve a wider array of people including individuals with temporary or permanent disabilities, parents with small children, and everyone whose abilities change with age".

Probably this description will satisfy the majority of those who use slightly different terms like: "Barrier Free Design", "Design for All", "Inclusive Design", etc.

But still this description of Universal Design is nothing more than an "excellent mantra" if we do not further specify the context in which it applies and if we do not agree an priorities and strategies to reach the ultimate goals.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN, aspects of contexts

Obviously "a pair of shoes should not be designed in such a way that everybody would want to wear them." Why not? It's simply because people in Western society have an enormous choice of shoes and hence the level of criticality is very low.

On the other hand when people, like myself born with one hand only, use a staircase or an escalator in a busy railroad station, it is crucial that we can use a handrail as well when going up as when coming down, hence all staircases and escalators should have handrails on both sides. Too many users have little or no choice in finding a place, in reading a public message or in hearing an announcement, in using a public telephone, in entering a public building or in the use of a staircase or an emergency exit. Hence the level of criticality is very high.

By priority then objects and places should be designed according to the principles of universal design. Once the goals and the overall aspects of the concept are clear enough, and once different groups and categories of users have defined levels of "criticality and choice", vis-à-vis specifically built environments, objects and facilities, then we can discuss strategies.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN, aspects of strategies

At this point only some basic ideas and principles can be listed:

* First principle: "USER PARTICIPATION"

Categories of users should intensively be involved in problem definitions, design briefings, design processes, testing and post-production or post-construction evaluations.

* Second principle: "WHOLISTIC APPROACH"

A good solution for one group of users might create barriers for other categories of people. Narrow corridors connecting a series of rooms might guide a person with a visual impairment but simultaneously hinder a wheelchair user.

Or a good solution from a functional point of view might be unaesthetic or stigmatising. All elements have to be brought together in symbiosis.

* Third principle: "CREATIVE APPROACH"

A fundamental life long experience leads me to the conclusion that for a disabled person, good economic and social conditions together with special and tender care and respect of parents, spouse, grownup children, friends and colleagues are of utmost importance.

However on a personal level, social conditions or other people cannot do all the work. Personal abilities such as (emotional) intelligence, courage, perseverance and above all the ultimate spirit of creativity, help people with disabilities to overcome handicaps. As well in the elimination of social and physical barriers as in the organisation of one's personal life, creativity is the key word for people with disabilities.

Reflecting on the role of legislation and standardisation in strategies toward universal design Ron Mace (died 1999), a disabled designer himself, gave a very creative and convincing hint:

"Legislated changes notwithstanding it is designers who will decide whether accessibility will take the form of better design for everyone, or simply unattractive, costly, Band-Aid responses to annoying code requirements" (2)

Day to day experience reveals that many existing objects, facilities and built environments already have this "timeless quality" which universal design aims for. Good solutions most often go unnoticed. If we gradually improve the human-made environment by eliminating misfits and by introducing universal qualities, we may even expect that the overall "Gestalt" quality will increase for everyone.

Prof. Hubert Froyen, M.Arch. PHL Department of Architecture, University Campus, Bldg.E
B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.