I enjoy a good conceptual discussion just as much as anyone else, but not when it comes to the three siblings: “Universal Design”, “Inclusive Design” and “Design for all”.
Take teaching future designers as an example. For our students, learning to understand the consequences of their design decisions is far more important than knowing the distinctions between the three.
The concepts have always overlapped significantly, and they are converging rather than diverging.
They Share the Same Goal: A Society of Everyone
The three concepts are all expressions of the same ambition: that the whole population can use what we design. An early example, from 2002:
“Universal design overcomes the perpetuation of social difference. The idea is to infuse design with an inclusive approach.“ [1, p.180].
This “inclusive approach” characterises all three of them.
They Share Their Twin Foci: Both Process and End Result
The first time Ron Mace used the term “Universal Design” publicly was in 1985, in an interior design magazine called “Designers West”.
The first two sentences in this piece are still strikingly relevant today:
“What is universal design? Universal design is simply a way of designing a building or facility, at little or no extra cost, so it is both attractive and functional for all people, disabled or not.” [2, p.147].
A lot has certainly happened since 1985, but the twin foci encompassing both process and end result have been there all along.
The reason I usually use “Universal Design” is simply because that’s the term used in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I recognise that there are differences between the three, especially in methodology, and that they come from different contexts.
However, for me, these differences are too subtle to justify keeping them apart. It is a waste of time to argue over which term to use while real barriers 1) remain and 2) are reiterated over and over again.
Returning to our design students: My hope for them is that they will have the combined powers of all three in their toolbox.
Which term do you use – and why?
References:
- Steinfeld, E., & Tauke, B. (2002). Universal Designing. In J. Christophersen & Norske stats husbank (Eds.), Universal design: 17 ways of thinking and teaching (1. utg, pp. 165–189). Oslo: Husbanken.
- Mace, R. (1985). Universal design: Barrier-free environments for everyone. Designers West, 33(1), 147–152.
Thanks for reading Dignity and Diversity by Design – with Per-Olof Hedvall! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.