Universal/Inclusive DesignTowards a More Thorough

Ethical and Theoretical Understanding

Ilse Oosterlaken, 4 June 2014Colloquium Philosophy Section TU Delft

Questions for You

• Does this seems like the sort of topic which is innovative & exciting enough for a VENI project?

• Which more specific / other research questions and approaches can you think of?

• Suggestions for focusing on specific domains or cases?

• Whom should I talk to in the process of further developing this idea into a proposal?

• If not for a VENI proposal – is anyone else interested in developing a joint proposal for another grand scheme?

Universal/Inclusive Design:The Paradigm Case

UD as Established Design Practice (I)

UD as Established Design Practice (II)

Definition of UD

“….design for human diversity, social inclusion, and equality” (Design for All Europe, 2008)

“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” (Mace, 1985)

The Alternative:Assistive or Adaptable Technology

• Assistive: technologies designed to meet characteristics/needs of people with specific disabilities

• Adaptable: modification of or add-ons to standard design for purpose of making it usable by certain individuals

Steinfeild & Maisel (2012) about assistive technologies:

• “High rates of abandonment by unsatisfied end users” o change in user needs & prioritieso poor device procurement & performanceo lack of consideration of user opinion

• Lack of attention for contextual embedding and training• “Fears about acceptance, embarrassment, or attracting

unwanted attention”

The Principles of UD

Connell et all 1997; Story 1998; Steinfeld & Maisel 2012)

1. Equitable use. The design does not disadvantage or stigmatize any group of users

2. Flexibility in use. The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities

3. Simple and intuitive use 4.Perceptible information 5.Tolerance for error 6.Low physical effort 7.Size and space for approach and use

Erlandson (2008)

1.Ergonomically sound2.Perceptible3.Cognitively sound4.Flexible5.Error-managed (proofed)6.Efficient7.Stable and predictable8.Equitable

Criticism on the Principles of UD

• Fit with needs in the field different versions arose • The issue of appearance more than just functional benefits (e.g.

appearance stigmatization)• Language Do not translate well into other languages• Goals: lack clarity of purpose; equitable in use ( social justice,

“flexibility in use” ( design strategy), rest: human performance .• Scope - What about health promotion, disease prevention, social

interaction, friendship formation, cultural diversity?• Fit with context: constraints imposed by design & implementation context.• Narrow focus on personal empowerment –personalization /

customization broader diversity issues and social identity.• Difficulty for benchmarking - No metrics or standards, terminology is not

amenable to benchmarking & developing best practices.• Lack of an evidence base(Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012)

A Key Challenge for UD

Example: design of an ATM (Keates, forthcoming)•A user in a wheelchair: keypad/screen at a lower height reachable and visible from a seated position •Someone with a visual impairment: keypad/screen closer to their eye-level seen more easily from standing position

Challenge acknowledged – but have the implications been fully driven through?

For example, architectural design for:•The visually impaired •People with autism

Which Users Does UD Serve?Which Trade-Offs are Made?

“Redirecting design towards the needs of those marginalized by specific physical conditions means other priorities go unmet. The implication that such trade-offs are not necessary —that singular [universally designed] systems can account for all needs— risks depoliticizing inherently political design questions about whose interests should be accounted for and how.” (Nieusma, 2004)

Universal Design = Good Design?

• “…no longer talk about the specific needs of certain categories of people, but talk about human functioning. We should look at every aspect of human functioning, without categorizing […] Accessibility will lose its stigma and become a mainstream issue. We won’t need terms like Design for All or Universal Design anymore. We will only refer to good design and bad design.” (future vision of the European Concept for Accessibility Network, 2001, as quoted by Erlandson 2008)

• Chair at Include 2009 Conference: “I’d like to see the crap design being inclusive”. One of many “fierce” reactions from the audience: “If crap design can be inclusive design, what does that mean for what we mean by inclusive design?” (as reported by Helighen & Bianchin, 2010)

Human Diversity in Philosophy of Technical Artefacts

• Houkes-Vermaas theory of the nature of technical artefacts: o “designers primarily aim at aiding prospective users to realize their

goals” (Vermaas & Houkes 2006) o Use plan central rather than artefact. Per definition assumes

certain user characteristicso “If a designer wants to make his design as inclusive or universal as

possible, belief consistency makes good designing a considerable challenge” (Houkes & Vermaas 2010)

• Franssen’s hierarchy of normative factso ‘Good’ design: always relative to user assumed in the use plan

(problem many designers: assume ‘average’ user / one like them)o Hierarchy of normative facts, e.g. x is a K; x is a poor/good K; x

makes a poor/good K; x is a malfunctioning Ko Extension needed to deal with evaluation UD: x is an

(in)appropriate K for p in C (Oosterlaken 2012)

Gap: Lack of Theoretical Reflection on UD

“While UD has intuitive appeal, and has quickly gained global reach, even totemic status, there has been little or no evaluation of its underlying principles and its theoretical and conceptual content” Three issues (Imrie, 2012) 1.“Belief in the significance of technology”; too little attention for social embedding/interaction as important for outcomes (and what about non-technical solutions?)2.“Defence of universalism” / “ambivalence towards particularism”; paradoxically, an abstract, stereotype picture of human diversity; narrow philosophical anthropology; user as remote figure / non-involvement users3.“Propagation of [UD through] market discourses”; risk of selective response to needs disabled people depending on costs/profit, weakening of rights discourse

UD & the Capability Approach

• In common: awareness of human diversity• Relation “technical artefacts – human capabilities” depends on

personal conversion factors (UD: way to anticipate these different factors & deal with them)

• Way to evaluate ‘succes’ of UD effort. Brings into play factors of cultural and social embedding of the universally designed artefact – or anything which may influence achieving the intended capability expansion.

• Starting from capabilities as ultimate ends leads to openness to different means. Are assistive or adaptable technologies sometimes better? Or non-technical interventions?

Intermezzo:Types & Levels of Capabilities

(A) capability to join timber & (B) capability to build a house A is one CONSTITUTIVE ELEMENT of B?(A) capability to be healthy & (B) capability for affiliation. A is MEANS to B? (A) capability to own a house & (B) capability to be sheltered in a

safe way and protected from the elements A is SPECIFIC INSTANTIATION of B? (A sufficient for B)(A) capability to read the newspapers & (B) capability to read

A is a FURTHER SPECIFICATION of B? Or B is capacity that contributes to capability A?

Might it make sense to apply something like ‘functional decomposition’ to the higher-level, intrinsically valuable capabilities?

Some Possible Research Questions

• Which conception of disability is implicitly present in the UD movement, and does the CA offer a better conception?

• How should the aim / ‘success’ be defined and assessed in UD?

• Does there exist any moral obligation to strive for UD in a market setting, and if so – under which conditions?

• Given that full universal design is hardly realistically possible - How do / should universal designers decide on which groups to include?

• Is there indeed a convincing moral reason – such as preventing stigmatization - to always prefer UD, rather than “adaptation or specialized design”?

Empirical Component?

• Ethical parallel research with a number of on-going UD projects?

• Case studies of a number of already finished & implemented UD projects?

• Analysis of dominant UD literature & texts of organizations promoting UD?