How Categorisation Shapes (and Limits) Universal Design

Hi there 👋 Why do we have different signs for "disabled toilet" and "toilet"? Why not just "Large" and "Small" toilets? This suggestion has been around since the 1970s, but still awaits its breakthrough.

The last time I was in Italy, I found myself in front of a toilet door where someone had peeled off the wheel, leaving just the person visible. As someone who uses a wheelchair myself, I, of course, noticed this and found it interesting (Figure 2).

Was it an act of resistance? Did someone want to make a point about the categories, persons "with" and "without" disabilities? I wish I could ask the person why they did it.

What if we designed signs that didn't categorise bodies at all? (Figure 1)

From Toilets to Theory

In our research, we’ve seen how categorisation silently shapes even the best-intentioned designs. To categorise people means sorting them into different groups, such as “persons with disabilities”, “men”, “women”, and “normal”, etc. This creates divisions between groups, which isn’t unproblematic.

Since I started to work with categorisation in design about ten years ago, this has unlocked a new strand of reasoning that I didn’t have sufficient access to before:

• Categorisation is an act. It is an active process and is always done to someone by someone. [1].
• Categorisation values certain perspectives and silences others. This means that it gives advantages to some and disadvantages to others. This is often done in an invisible way [2].

Studying categorisation as an act has changed how I approach Universal Design. Here are three key insights:

Three Insights from Studying Categorisation

1. Categorisation Makes It Possible To Explore Photos and Texts Together

We have used categorisation to explore collections and collages of research material, such as texts and photos, together. For example, when we analysed photos of playgrounds alongside municipal policies, we discovered how "designing for girls" creates a gendered categorisation that can reinforce subordinate stereotypes rather than challenge them [3].

2. Categorisation Can Be a Driver for Conceptual Development

Our discussions of categorisations have elicited a critique of the taken-for-granted-good term “Inclusion”. When we examined the word "inclusion" closely, we realised that it always involves someone with power including someone else. The very act of inclusion reveals a division between those who belong and those who need to be "included" [4].

3. Categorisation Can Create New Design Possibilities

Instead of asking "Is this toilet for men or women?", we can ask "Does this toilet provide privacy, hygiene facilities, space and handrails?" The shift from categorising bodies to describing situations opens entirely new design approaches [6].

As Bowker and Starr say, “To classify is human” [2, p.1]. But, if categorising bodies and roles creates these problems, what's the alternative?

This is where nonclusion comes in.

Nonclusive Design – Beyond Bodies and Roles – Beyond "Us and Them"

Nonclusion means a deliberate change in what we choose to categorise:

“Nonclusive design means design that resists categorisations of bodies/roles and that does not come with predefined or presupposed limits in terms of who it is meant for.” [5]

Rather than asking “who” the design is for, we propose asking “what functions, facilities or situations” it supports. This shift resists the impulse to categorise bodies and roles, and instead focuses on environments, interaction, and variation.

Do you have an example where we can stop using categories of bodies or people and instead turn our attention to the context and what is available to the person in this situation?

Notes and References

This piece builds on findings from The Syntax of Equality project, where we investigate situation-based categorisation and nonclusive design through citizen science and field observations.

Do you want to use the photos or illustrations in a publication? Please go ahead. Or in a presentation or video? Please do, and tell me about how you use them and what you learn! I appreciate attribution in some form, i.e., that you tell where you got the material from ("Per-Olof Hedvall"), but it is not mandatory. 👍

References:

1. Hornscheidt, A. (2009). Intersectional challenges to gender studies–gender studies as a challenge to intersectionality. Gender Delight. Science, Knowledge, Culture and Writing… for Nina Lykke. Linköping: LiU-Tryck, 33–46.
2. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press.
3. Sandström, I., Ericsson, S., & Hedvall, P.-O. (2024). Gendered sustainability: Are public spaces designed for girls good for everyone?: Examining female participation as a strategy for inclusive public space. Cities, 149, 104906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104906.
4. Hedvall, P.-O., & Ericsson, S. (2024). The Problem with “Inclusion”? It Is Done to Someone by Someone. In Universal Design 2024: Shaping a Sustainable, Equitable and Resilient Future for All (pp. 18–25). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240978.
5. Hedvall, P.-O., Price, M., Keller, J., & Ericsson, S. (2022). Towards 3rd Generation Universal Design: Exploring Nonclusive Design. Transforming Our World through Universal Design for Human Development, 85–92. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI220824.
6. Ericsson, S., & Hedvall, P. O. (2024). Situation, Non-categorisation, and Variation—Conveying Nonclusion Through Text and Image. In Difference – Sketching, Visualising and challenging Universal Design in Sweden (Vol. 19, pp. 31–50). Design for All Institute of India. http://designforall.in/?mdocs-file=2472.