Assistive Technology

ISSN: 1040-0435 (Print) 1949-3614 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaty20

Maximizing Usability: The Principles of Universal Design

Molly Follette Story M.S.

To cite this article: Molly Follette Story M.S. (1998) Maximizing Usability: The Principles of Universal Design, Assistive Technology, 10:1, 4-12, DOI: 10.1080/10400435.1998.10131955

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1998.10131955

Published online: 22 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2401

View related articles

Citing articles: 61 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaty20

Download by: [University of Iowa Libraries] Date: 17 January 2017, At: 13:14 Asst Technol1998;1 0:4-12 APPLIED RESEARCH © 1998 RESNA

Maximizing Usability: The Principles of Universal Design

Molly Follette Story, M.S.

Th e Center for Universal Design , School ofDesign , North Caroli na S tate Unive rsity, Raleigh , North Caroli na

The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina TYPES OF ACCESSIBLE DESIGN State University has developed a set of seven Princi­ ples of Universal Design that may be used to guide the Accessible design can be defined as design that design process, to evaluate existing or new designs, meets prescribed code requirements for use by peo­ and to teach students and practitioners. This article ple with disabilities (Center for Accessible Hous­ presents preceding design guidelines and evaluation ing, 1991). Because it is often achieved by provid­ criteria, describes the process of developing the Prin­ ing separate design features for "special" user ciples, lists The Principles of Universal Design and groups, it can segregate people with disabilities provides examples of designs that satisfy each, and from the majority of users and make them feel out suggests future developments that would facilitate ap­ plying the Principles to assess the usability of all types of place. Examples of accessible design include of products and environments. ramps alongside entrances with stairs; oversized

Key Words: Universal design-Principles of uni­ paddle blade handles on large, lowered sinks in versal design-Design guidelines-Evaluation crite­ public restrooms; and auxiliary tactile signage. ria-Assistive technology. These solutions can be stigmatizing and costly, sometimes added on to existing designs or even to new construction at the end of the design process. When added on later, accessible features reflect the designers' failure to consider people with lim­ Universal design can be defined as the design of itations until after the fact , often until forced to by products and environments that can be used and law. experienced by people of all ages and abilities, to Universal design is always accessible, but be­ the greatest extent possible , without adaptation cause it integrates accessibility from the beginning (Center for Accessible Housing, 1995). In the best of the design process, it is less likely to be notice­ examples, universal design features go unnoticed able. because they have been fully integrated into Adaptable design features are modifications thoughtful design solutions that are used by a full made to a standard design for the purpose ofmak­ spectrum of the population. Successfully designed ing the design usable for an individual, as needed universal solutions do not call attention to them­ (Center for Accessible Housing, 1991). Some ex­ selves as being anything more than easier for ev­ amples of adaptable design are base cabinets that eryone to use, which is exactly what they are. De­ are removable from under bathroom sinks, volume signs that were developed with consideration for controls for attaching to telephones, and large the needs of a diverse population work for men and grips for addingto kitchen utensils. Like accessible women , children and elders, small people and designs, adaptable design features sometimes look large, and people with temporary or longer-term tacked on, are stigmatizing, and add expense. disabilities. They work when it's dark, noisy, wet, Universal design sometimes employs adaptable or when we're tired. Everyone benefits. strategies for achieving customization, but it is best when all choices are presented equally. Ex­ Address correspo ndence and reprint requests to Molly Follette amples include a height-adjustable cooktop that Story, M.S., 16438 East Dorado Avenue, Aurora, CO 80015. can move between low for short or seated cooks and

4 Not all accessible design is universal. Designs that fall within the relm of "accessible" but outside of "universal" exlude some users, such as a control panel with large membrane switches that suit peo­ ple with limited manual control but not people who are blind. Universal design is the most inclusive and least stigmatizing of the three types of acces­ sible design because it addresses all types of hu­ man variation and accessibility is integrated into design solutions.

HUMAN ADAPTATION

There are three ways to enhance an individual's capabilities: change the person, provide the indi­ vidual with tools he or she can use, or change the environment (Vanderheiden, 1997). The first approach requires the most of the in­ dividual. It involves surgery to change the body it­ FIG . 1. Relationshi p between access ible, adaptable, self, therapy to change what the body can do, and! transge nerationa l, and uni ver sal design. or training in adaptive techniques to change how the person behaves. The second approach, providing the individual high for tall and standing cooks, or a choice ofover­ with tools he or she can use, utilizes assistive tech­ lays for a microwave control panel, such as braille nology. Assistive technology can be defined as any (for those who cannot see but know braille), tactile device that makes it easier or possible for someone

(for tho se who don't know braille), or smooth (for to use a product or environment or to accomplish easier cleaning if low vision is not a concern ). a task that would otherwise be impossible or at Tran sgenerational design , sometimes called life­ least more difficult. Some assistive technologies, span design, is design that considers the changes such as eyeglasses, hearing aids, or leg prostheses, that happen to people as they age (Pirkl, 1994). Be­ are devices worn by individuals to help them in a cause it does not specifically address congenital general way as they go about their daily lives. Oth­ conditions or changes that may happen as a result er technologies, such as magnifying glasses, of an injury or illness, transgenerational design sound-amplifying TV headphones, or walking does not necessarily address the full range of pos­ canes, are tools used by individuals to accomplish sible disabilities nor other factor s that affect us­ specific tasks. ability, such as gender differences, cultural back­ The third approach, changing the environment ground, and literacy level. Some universal design to make it easier to use, would include lowered is tran sgenerational, but the approach is inclusive kitchen sinks with open knee space below, tactile of more than just age-related disabilities. lettering or symbols on signage or products, and Universal design, then, is sometimes adaptable open or closed captioning on television and video and sometimes transgenerational but alway s ac­ programming. cessible. The relationship between th e four types These are all methods of adaptation, although of design can be illustrated as shown in Figure 1. the three categories above are listed in decreasing Figure 1 shows a large circle labeled "Accessible order of how much they require of the individual. Design." Within it are three small circles, and por­ The implications of the change of focus are signif­ tions of each small circle overlap the other two; in icant and have a major impact on people's inde­ the center, all three overlap. The three small cir­ pendence and self image. Universal design applies cles are labeled "Adaptable Design ," "Transgener­ to the third approach, changing the built environ­ ational Design," and "Universal Design ." This di­ ment, which includes everyday products, build­ agram illustrates that universal design, adaptable ings , and outdoor environments. Its goal is to min­ design , and transgenerational design are all sub­ imize the need to change the individual or employ sets of accessible design. Sometimes a design can assistive technology and to make everyone's use of be considered to be two of these subsets , and some products and environments as smooth as possible. designs are all three. Universal design strives to minimize the amount

PRINCIPLES OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN 5 of adaptation required of the individual and max­ asked consumers to evaluate the criteria and help imize their natural inclusion in daily activities of amend them for use by the RERC-TET in their all kinds. product evaluations (Lane, Usiak, & Moffatt, 1996; Lane, Usiak, Stone, & Scherer, 1997). Their re­ DESIGN GUIDELINES AND EVALUATION sulting 11 criteria, condensed from the Batavia CRITERIA and Hammer criteria, are How is assistive technology designed? A number • effectiveness, of groups have published guidelines for the devel­ • affordability, opment of various specific technologies, most no­ • reliability, tably those contained in the Telecommunications • portability, Act of 1996 (Telecommunications Access Advisory • durability, Committee, 1997). Several references contain cri­ • securability, teria for telephones (Francik, 1996; Pacific Bell, • physical security/safety, 1995), consumer electronic products (Electronics • learnability, Industries Association & Electronic Industries • physical comfortJacceptance, Foundation, 1996), accessible Internet web sites • ease of maintenance/repairability, and (Vanderheiden & Lee, 1988), or computer software • operability. (Vanderheiden, 1994). Staff at Honeywell (1992) These criteria are helpful in developing and eval­ wrote some preliminary Human Factors Design uating designs that address issues identified by Guidelines for the Elderly and People with Dis­ consumers as being the most important to them abilities that address when purchasing and living with assistive devices. • controls, They cover all aspects of ownership and use. • visual displays, Universal design has suffered from a lack of de­ • auditory displays, fining criteria such as these for assistive devices. • functional allocation and panel layout, and It has been communicated most often through ci­ tation of good examples of the concept rather than • operating protocol. concrete description of its characteristics. Although incomplete, they represent one compa­ For example, Ronald L. Mace, founder and Pro­ ny's noteworthy attempt to serve a broader mar­ gram Director at The Center for Universal Design ket. Vanderheiden and Vanderheiden (1992) de­ at North Carolina State University, advocates pre­ veloped a set of excellent guidelines for the design senting a hierarchy of universal design examples, of consumer products, addressing from designs requiring the least amount of inter­ action with users to ones requiring the most. He • outputJdisplays, uses doors as an example. His hierarchy of inter­ • inputJcontrols, action ranges from no door (just an opening in a • manipulations, wall) to powered doors triggered by motion detec­ • documentation, and tors, sensor mats, or push buttons to nonpowered • safety. doors that must be pushed or pulled. Doors with no They offer specific recommendations to improve latch are easier to open than ones with lever door the accessibility of a wide range of products. handles, which are easier than ones with round Other published guidelines address the needs of doorknobs; nonpowered doors with automatic clos­ specific groups of users, such as those published by ing mechanisms require still more force to open The Lighthouse for legible text for people with low and pass through. At the bottom of Mace's hier­ vision (Arditi, 1997a, 1997b). All of these guide­ archy is the manual revolving door, which requires lines are useful for improving the accessibility of strength, constant maneuvering, and accurate the specific product areas addressed. timing of when to enter and exit (R. L. Mace, per­ In addition, researchers have developed sets of sonal communication, February 1998). general design evaluation criteria, most notably While presentation ofthese examples is helpful, those developed by Batavia and Hammer (1990) it requires audience members to interpret and in­ for the evaluation of assistive devices. Their orig­ ternalize the approach for themselves. It demands inal17 criteria were subsequently reviewed by the substantial commitment of listeners and requires Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center the presenter to offer a very wide range of exam­ (RERC) on Technology Evaluation and Transfer ples to assure that all aspects of the concept have (RERC-TET) at the University at Buffalo, which been conveyed.

6 ASSISTIYE TECHNOLO GY, YOLo10, NO.1 Project staff then convened a working group of PRINCIPLE ONE: Equitable Use architects, product designers, engineers, and en­ The design is useful and marketabl e to people with vironmental design researchers from other re­ diverse abilities. search facilitie s to assemble a set of principles of PRINCIPLE TWO: Flexibility in Use universal design that would encapsulate the exist­ The design accommodates a wide range of individ­ ual preferences and abilities. ing knowledge base. The Principles of Universal Design were established through collaborative ef­ PRINCIPLE THREE: Simple and Intuitive Use Use of th e design is easy to und erst and, regardless forts from individuals! at several sites, including of th e user's experience, knowledge, lan guage the Center for Universal Design, Shepherd Spinal skills, or current concentration level. Center, J . L. Mueller, Inc., The University at Buf­ PRINCIPLE FOUR: Perceptible Information falo, Trace R&D Center, and Adaptive Environ­ The design communicates necessary informati on ments Center. They reflect this group's vast collec­ effectively to the user, regardless of ambient con­ tive experience in researching and practicing uni­ ditions or th e user's sensory abilities. versal design in the diverse fields they represent. PRINCIPLE FIVE: Tolerance for Error The principles were independently reviewed by a The design minimizes ha zards and the adverse second group of practitioners" to critique, validate, consequences of accidental or unintended actions. and refine them. PRINCIPLE SIX: Low Physical Effort The Principles of Universal Design (Center for The design can be used efficiently and comfortably Universal Design, 1997)(Fig. 2) apply to all design and with a minimum of fatigue . disciplines and all people and are useful for design, PRINCIPLE SEVEN: Size and Space for Approach evaluation, and instruction. Each of the seven and Use Appropriate size and space is provided for ap­ principles has four or five guidelines that elaborate proach, reach , manipulation, and use regardless of on the concept embodied in it. They can be used to the user's body size, posture, or mobility. guide the design process, to evaluate existing or new designs, and to teach students and practition­ FIG. 2. The Principles of Universal Design, Versi on 2.0, ers new to the concept what universal design en­

Copyright 1997: North Carolina State University, th e Cen­ compasses and how it may be achieved. The prin­ ter for Universal Design . ciples are a work in progress and efforts are on­ going to make them easier to apply. The Principles of Universal Design are present­ THE PRINCIPLES OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN ed in the following format: name of the principle, Especially because ofits initial emphasis and on­ intended to be a concise and easily remembered going expertise in accessible housing which in­ statement of th e key concept embodied in the prin­ volves so many design specialties, the Center for ciple; definition of the principle, a briefdescription Universal Design at North Carolina State Univer­ of the principle's primary directive for design; and sity takes a broad view of design for people of all guidelines, a list of the key elements that should ages and abilities. Their beliefis that universal de­ be present in a design that adheres to the princi- sign applies to all design disciplines, from land­ scape design, architecture, and interiors to product and graphic design and communications. I Primary autho rs ofThe Pri nciples ofUniversal Design were (in From 1994 to 1997, the Center conducted a re­ alphabetical order) Bettye Rose Connell (The Center for Universal Design), Michael L. J ones (Shepherd Spinal Center), Ronald L. search and demonstration project funded by the Mace (The Cente r for Unive rsa l Design), J ames L. Muelle r (J. L. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilita­ Mueller, Inc.), Abir Mullick (The University at Buffalo), ElaineO s­ tion Research (NIDRR) titled "Studies to Further troff'(Adaptive Enviro nments Center), Jon A. Sanford (The Cente r the Development ofUniversal Design." Staffofthe for Universa l Design), Edwar d Steinfeld (The University at Buf­ Center for Universal Design conducted a series of falo), Molly Follette Story (The Center for Universal Design ), and evaluations of consumer products, architectural Gregg C. Vanderheiden (Trace R&D Center). 2 Reviewers of The Prin ciples of Universa l Design were Mere­ spaces, and building elements. The evaluations in­ dith Davis (North Carolina Sta te University), Allan Eckhaus volved site visits, focus groups, observations, and (Consumers Union), Susa n Goltsman (Moore, Iacofano, & Golts­ personal interviews. The purpose of the evalua­ man ), Paul Grays on (Environments for Living), Peter Orleans (Ar­ tions was to determine optimal performance char­ chitect ), Mary J o Peterson (Interior Designer), Vietor Regnier (An­ drus Gerontology Cente r), J ohn Salmen (Universal Designers & acteristics and use features that make products Consulta nts ), Steven Sargent (Consumer Product Testing Labs), and environments usable by the greatest diversity Polly Welch (University of Oregon ), and Margaret Wylde (Pro­ of people. Matura Group ).

PRINC IPLES OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN 7 ple. (Note: all guidelines may not be relevant to all Guidelines: designs.) (3a) Eliminate unnecessary complexity. Principle One: Equitable Use (3b) Be consistent with user expectations and in­ tuition. The design is useful and marketable to people (Sc) Accommodate a wide range of literacy and with diverse abilities. language skills. Guidelines: (3d) Arrange information consistent with its im­ portance. (La) Provide the same means of use for all users: (3e) Provide effective prompting and feedback identical whenever possible, equivalent when during and after task completion. not. (Ib) Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users. Example: imported furniture assembly instruc­ (Lc) Make provisions for privacy, security, and tions. An excellent example of simple and intuitive safety equally available to all users. use is a furniture manufacturer who ships products (I d) Make the design appealing to all users. allover the world. Rather than print the assembly instructions in several different languages, they Example: building entrances. The main en­ eliminated text entirely. Instead, they offered a se­ trance to a building (and ideally, all entrances) ries of clear illustrations that match the furniture should have a well-integrated and level or gently and showed small pieces magnified and exploded sloping approach, a door that automatically opens, apart in the proper sequence for assembly (Fig. 3). and a flush or minimal (1,4") threshold. Every visi­ tor to the facility should be able to use the same Principle Four: Perceptible Information entrancets). The design communicates necessary informa­ Principle Two: Flexibility in Use tion effectively to the user, regardless ofambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. The design accommodates a wide range of in­ dividual preferences and abilities. Guidelines:

Guidelines: (4a) Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) (2a) Provide choice in methods of use. for redundant presentation of essential infor­ (2b) Accommodate right- or left-handed access mation. and use. (4b) Maximize legibility of essential information. (2c) Facilitate the user's accuracy and precision. (4c) Differentiate elements in ways that can be de­ (2d) Provide adaptability to the user's pace. scribed (i.e., make it easy to give instructions or directions). Example: automated teller machines (ATMs). (4d) Provide compatibility with a variety of tech­ Ideally, the ATM's screen is located where it can niques or devices used by people with sensory be seen and its control panel can be reached from limitations. a standing or seated position by tall and short users; the ATM card slot ha s a tapered opening to Example: computer software. Ideally, informa­ facilitate card insertion by those with limited man­ tion is provided in text for those who can read the ual control; the ATM's buttons are big enough and words , pictorially for those who cannot, and audi­ far enough apart to be pressed accurately by those bly for those who cannot see. The computer should with limited manual dexterity; its graphics can be work with standard screen enlargement and read by those with limited vision or felt by those screen reader software and with speakers or head­ with no vision; and the device will provide feed­ phones. Technical assistance should be available back audibly for those who cannot see or read the via e-mail, the telephone, and the postal service. screen. The process should be achievable by a slow novice user yet not fru strating to a quick experi­ Principle Five: Tolerance for Error enced user. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequence s ofaccidental or unintended actions. Principle Three: Simple and Intuitive Use Guidelines: Use ofthe design is easy to understand, regard­ less of the user's experience, knowledge, language (5a) Arrange elements to minimize hazards and skills, or current concentration level. errors: most used elements, most accessible;

8 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO.1 FIG. 3. Assembly instructions for imported furniture eliminate translation problems by providing clear illustrations with­ out text.

hazardous elements eliminated, isolated, or be easy to open. The bottle and the cap should be shielded. easy to grip and to turn and involve only a small (5b) Provide warnings of hazards and errors. range of motion (Fig. 4).

(fi e) Provide fail-safe features. (5d) Discourage unconscious action in tasks that Principle Seven: Size and Space for Approach require vigilance. and Use Example: building features . Visitors to a public Appropriate size and space is provided for ap­ place should be able to navigate without risking proach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless physical danger. A color coding scheme can facili­ ofthe user's body size, posture, or mobility. tate wayfinding, as can hallways that return to a common area rather than stop in dead ends; door­ ways to destinations can be painted in colors that contrast with the adjacent walls while doorways to private spaces are painted to match them; and doorknobs on doors that lead to mechanical rooms and other potentially dangerous spaces can be locked or abrasively textured.

Principle Six: Low Physical Effort The design can be used efficiently and comfort­ ably and with a minimum offatigue. Guidelines:

(Ga) Allow user to maintain a neutral body posi- tion. (6b) Use reasonable operating forces. (Be) Minimize repetitive actions. (6d) Minimize sustained physical effort. FIG. 4. Pain reliever cap ha s big tab and must be turned Example: medicine bottles. When child protec­ only 1J. turn to open. This facilitates grip and minimizes re­ tion is not a concern, bottles of medications should peated twisting.

PRINCIPLE S OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN 9 Guidelines: • Provide connectivity for assistive devices, (7a) Provide a clear line of sight to important el­ if used, such as headphones or infrared de­ vices. ements for any seated or standing user. (7b) Make reach to all components comfortable for (2b) Accommodate left- or right-handed access any seated or standing user. and use. (7c) Accommodate variations in hand and grip • Make the device symmetrical, reversible, size. or rearrangeable to suit both left- and (7d) Provide adequate space for the use of assis­ right-handed users. tive devices or personal assistance. (2c) Facilitate the user's accuracy and precision. Example: toilet rooms. Wall-mounted compo­ nents (e.g., toilet paper, trash can, belongings • Make controls easy to grip and to move, shelf) should be visible, easy to reach, and easy for whether they turn, slide, or press. Provide all sizes of hands to use. The room itself should be sufficient but not excessive friction in mov­ large enough to fit a wheelchair and a personal as­ ing parts to facilitate precision. sistant, child, or companion, if desired. • Make buttons large enough with sufficient space between buttons to facilitate accu­ Note that the Principles of Universal Design rate keying. only address the usability of designs. As indicated • If a key or card must be inserted into the by Batavia and Hammer's (1990) criteria for eval­ device, slope or bevel the entry hole to fa­ uating assistive technologies, there are other is­ cilitate its insertion. sues of importance to consumers, such as afford­ • Provide a palm rest or elbow rest below ability and durability of products. However, the control panels. Principles of Universal Design serve to specify those aspects of usability that are most affected by (2d) Provide adaptability to the user's pace. the range of human variation and that merit spe­ • Allow novice users to move slowly and to cial attention from designers. access additional help messages, as need­ The Principles of Universal Design should apply ed. Allow expert users to move quickly and to all phases of use. A product should be easy to try skip intermediate steps, when possible. in a store environment, set up in the home, use the first time, use long term, maintain, repair, and dis­ Some tests for this principle would be pose of. • Can the device be used with a closed fist or open palm, either left or right? Can it be used with a APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF bilateral closed-fist grip? Can it be used with a UNIVERSAL DESIGN pointing tool? Can the device be used with an el­ While the Principles of Universal Design are a bow, foot, or other body part? Can the device be landmark achievement in communicating the con­ used with imprecise movements/limited coordi­ cept of universal design and all of its varied as­ nation, e.g., using the nondominant hand? pects, more work must be done to make them eas­ • Can the device be used from a seated or standing ier to apply. Two additional levels of information position? Can the device be used from different are planned that must be broken down by design heights or different angles? discipline. • Are built-in adjustments easy to make? Below the levels of name, definition, and guide­ • Can the device be used with assistive technolo­ line come strategies and tests. Strategies specify gy, such as a hearing aid, a prosthesis, or a ways that the guidelines may be achieved, and wheelchair? tests provide empirical tools to assess whether the guideline has been met. For example, for Principle ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY VS. Two: Flexibility in Use, some strategies for prod­ UNIVERSAL DESIGN ucts to meet the guidelines would be The goal of universal design is to maximize the normalcy of disability, but assistive technology (2a) Provide choice in methods of use . will always be needed. Because it will never be pos­ • Allow a choice of modes of input, such as sible to design anything that can be used equally keyboard or speech. easily by everyone, individuals, especially those • Provide redundant modes of output, such with the most severe disabilities, will always need as visual and auditory. some assistance from a device or another person.

10 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO.1 Nonetheless, as often as possible, mainstream mize the usability of the products and environ­ products should be made accessible. Ifmainstream ments they produce. products are designed with a universal design ap­ Third, industry needs guidance to market their proach, the need for assistive technology may be products appropriately. Appropriate marketing is reduced. At the same time, assistive devices should critical to the commercial success of universal de­ also be designed to be as universally usable as pos­ sign, a fact well understood by the originators of sible. If assistive technologies are designed with a the concept and the term in the early 1970s. Ad­ universal design approach, they may serve a wider vertising a product as being useful (only) for old range of users and the need for additional devices people or those with disabilities can be the kiss of may be reduced. death for a company. Companies need to learn Universal design has other advantages, as well. marketing techniques that will appeal to a broad These include audience without stigmatizing the product, the company, or the customer. • reduced cost of a device due to greater economies The primary benefit to industry of practicing of scale realized by mass production; universal design is that it will be more effective at • greate r availability of usable design s that were serving a consumer base that is more diverse than produced in quantity and marketed through a most realize. This will result in greater consumer variety of common channels; satisfaction and a more loyal customer base and • longevity of a device that continues to serve peo­ has the potential to increase the size of markets. ple even as their abilities change; The early practitioners of universal design, such as • better reliability of devices that were mass pro­ Honeywell (home controls such as thermostats), duced ; Cuisinart (small appliances such as food proces­ • easier rep airability of common devices; sors), Whirlpool (large appliances and telephone • inclusion of a person with a disability in using customer as sistance), and more recently Oxo (Good the same tools as everyone else in the famil y for Grip sv kitchen utensils ) and Fiskars (Softouch'P everyday activities; and scissors and shears), have gained a considerable • lack of stigma associated with devices that are

amount of free publicity about their efforts and a used by everyone. great deal of business from this exposure and the Universal design may, in fact, reduce the quality of the design s themselves. Their successes amount of personal assistance and the number of must be publicized more widely to entice addition­ special devices needed. When that cannot be done, al companies to follow suit. it should make connection to standard assistive de­ Two current trends increasin g momentum to­ vices as easy as possible. ward wider universal design adoption are the glob­ alization of the marketplace and the aging of the THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN world's population. As the globe shrinks and com­ petition for markets intensifies, design that accom­ The next frontier for universal design is indus­ modates diversity in language skills and life ex­ try. We understand universal design in the re­ periences will succeed. Also, as the world 's post­ search and academic communities, but in order to World War II baby boom generation ages, design make a difference in individuals' qualities of life, that reflects a beliefthat users are more important we must convince industry to change the way it op­ than art will thrive. The se issues will only become erates and to accept and adopt the concept of uni­ more important in the coming decades. versal design. What will attract industry? Unle ss In the meantime, rehabilitation professionals un iversal design will give companies a competitive can serve their clients most effectively by first re­ adva ntage, they cannot justify its practice. searching what solutions already exist. Often , the The first thing companies need is statistical jus­ assistive device needed by a client is available tification for practicing universal design. They through a mainstream catalog or even at a local need demographic information about the preva­ store. Second , service providers should recommend lence of disability and the aging of the world's pop­ products that are as universally usable as possible ulation and details about the legal requirements for the reasons mentioned above: easier availabil­ for accommodating people with disabilities. ity , lower cost, better reliability, easier repairabil ­ The second thing industry needs is a set of uni­ ity , less stigma, and greater utility for all members versal design performance measures against of the family. Third, rehabilitation engineers which to judge their designs for use by a diverse should custom design devices only when necessary cons umer base. These would assist them to maxi- and even then should design not only for the cur-

PRIN CIPLES OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN 11 rent needs of the client but for his or her future sal design (Version 2.0). Raleigh: North Carolina State Uni­ needs and the needs of other family members as versity. Electronics Industries Association and Electr onic Industries well. Foundation. (1996). Resource guide for accessible design of Universal design reflects a beliefthat the range consumer electronics [On-line]. Available: (www.eia.org/eifi' of human abilities is normal and results in inclu­ toc.htm) sion of people with disabilities in everyday activi­ Francik, E.(1996). Telephone interfaces: un iversal design fil­ ters. San Ramon , CA: Pacific Bell Human Factors Engineer­ ties. The most significant benefit to the prolifera­ ing. tion of universal design practice is that all consum­ Honeywell.(1990). Human factors design guidelines for the ers will have more products to choose from that are elderly and people with disabilities (Revision 3). Minne ap­ more usable, more readily available, and more af­ olis: Auth or. Lane, J . P., Usiak, D. J ., & Moffatt , J . A. (1996).Consumer cri­ fordable . teria for assi sti ve devices: Operationalizing generic criteria for specific ABLEDATA categories. In Proceedings of the Acknowledgments: This work was supported by RESNA Conference, (pp. 146-148). Arlin gton , VA: RESNA Press. the National Institute on Disability and Rehabili­ Lane, J . P., Usiak, D. J ., Stone, V. I., & Scherer, M. J. (1997). tation Research, U.S. Department of Education, The voice of the customer: Consumers define the ideal bat­ under grant H133A40006, "Studies to Further the tery charger. Assisti ve Technology, 9(2), 130-1 39. Development of Universal Design." The opinions Pacific Bell. (1995).A compi lation of interface design rules and guidelines for interactive voice response systems contained in this manuscript are those of the au­ (lVRs). San Ram on, CA: Pacific Bell Human Factors Engi­ thor and do not necessarily reflect those ofthe De­ neering. partment of Education. Pirkl, J . J. (1994). Transgenerational design : Products for an aging population. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Telecommunic ations Access Advisory Committee. (1997). Ac­ REFERENCES cess to telecommunications equipme nt and customer prem ­ ises equipmen t by individuals with di sabilities. Washing­ Arditi , A. (1997a). Color contrast and pa rtial sight: How to ton, DC: Architectural and Transport ation Barriers Compli­ design with colors that contrast effectively for people with ance Board . low vision and color deficiencies. New York: The Lighth ouse Vanderheiden, G. C. (1994). Application softw are design guidelines: Incr easing the accessibility of application soft­

[On-line]. Available: (www.lighthouse.org/llh32a.html) Arditi, A. (1997b). Print legibility and partial sight: Guide­ ware to people with disabilities and older users . Madison: lines for designing legible text . New York: The Lighthouse Univers ity of Wisconsin , Trace R&D Cente r. Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Unive rsal design vs. assistive [On-line]. Available: (www.lighthouse.org/1Ih32b.html) technology. (White paper distributed at RESNA 1997 annual Batavia, A. B., &Hamm er, G. (1990).Toward th e development conference.) Madison: University of Wisconsin , Trace R&D of general consum er criteria for the evaluation of assist ive Center. devices. Journ al of Rehab ilitation Research and Develop­ Vanderheiden, G.C., &Lee, C. C. (1988). Considerations in ment , 27(4),425-436. the design of computers and operating systems to increase Center for Accessible Housing. (1991). Definitions:Accessible, their accessi bility to persons with disabilities (Version 4.2). adaptable, and un iversal design (Fact Sheet). Raleigh: Madison: University of Wisconsin , Trace R&D Center. North Carolina State University. Vanderheiden, G. C., & Vand erheiden, K. R. (1992).Accessible Cente r for Accessible Housing. (1995). Accessible environ­ design of consumer products: Guidelines for the design of ments: Toward un iversal design . Raleigh: North Carolina consumer products to increase their accessi bility to persons Sta te University. with dis abilities or who are aging (Version 1.7). Madison: Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of univer- University of Wisconsin, Trace R&D Center.

12 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO.1