Hi there 👋 In newsletter #8, I wrote about a situation on board a train, where I was placed in a separate space that felt like a luggage compartment (Figure 1). It became my most shared post so far, and something clearly resonated.
Let’s return to this situation and analyse it from a nonclusive standpoint. This entails starting from human variation, where everyone already belongs.
A Story From The Luggage Compartment
First, a quick reminder of the situation:
I took a photo from inside the train car as soon as I had just entered it and found my place. Since I am using a wheelchair, I was directed to an open space near the toilets. There were no steps when I entered the train. I turned left, around a large toilet. There, marked with a wheelchair sign, was a space with a bike, a stroller, and a place for me to sit. Further into the train carriage, there were seats and tables for the other passengers. They could also sit facing each other, had plenty of space, access to a power outlet and a table. This revealed a hierarchy:
- Accessibility ✅ (OK): I got on board, was able to travel (technically accessible)
- Usability 🛑 (Failed): But I couldn't get anything done, and felt isolated (poor usability)
- Universal Design 🛑 (Failed): Not designed for everyone, manifested norm vs. deviation (non-existent universal design)
But what if we flip the script entirely and analyse this from “Already” rather than “Not Yet”?
What This Looks Like From A Nonclusive Perspective
In newsletters #9 and #10, I contrasted the “Conditional Access” to “Nonconditional Belonging” as a way to show the consequences of nonclusive thinking, that is, design based on human variation instead of predefined body-based categories [1]:
Conditional Access
Access is granted when you meet specified criteria. Design acts as a gatekeeper, determining who belongs through categorisation and conditions. Inclusion becomes something to achieve. Design creates accommodations for those deemed different from the norm, in order to “include” them.
Nonconditional Belonging
Belonging is ontological, not conditional. You already exist and thus are already part of human variation. Design either recognises this truth or denies it. No categorisation needed to grant access. Design doesn't include you: it acknowledges that you were never outside.
Analysis of the Train Ride
Using the two perspectives in an analysis highlights the differences between them.
From Conditional Access, I was allowed to go but not participate, and not with dignity:
- Access was granted (conditionally)
- The train's design failed to include
- Problem: The design excluded me
- Conditional access analysis: The train provided access (wheelchair space available) but not usability (isolated, segregated). Conclusion: We need a better design that includes everyone.
From Nonconditional Belonging, I already belong in this travel system. The design barred and thus denied my belonging:
- Belonging is an ontological truth. This is not something the train can give or take away
- The train’s design denied this truth
- Problem: The design is based on a false premise
- Nonclusive “I already belong” analysis: The train is designed assuming that some passengers are "normal/typical" and others are "deviant" who need a special place. But I am already a passenger, not a special category of passenger. Conclusion: The design is based on a false categorisation and a false ontological assumption regarding belonging from the outset, which is reflected in its layout.
Two Different Vantage Points: “Not Yet” vs. “Already”
Access is often framed in terms of “Not Yet”, as something to achieve. This places people on the outside. Consider these two questions:
- “Not Yet” question: "How do we get design to include me?" (Implicit: you are outside, design should let you in)
- “Already” question: "Why is this designed as if I don't already belong?" (Implicit: you already belong, design is flawed in its premise)
When I wrote about the train in #8, I analysed it as a failure to provide equitable access, with poor usability and a non-existent universal design mindset. That's true, but as the analysis above shows, the fundamental problem is deeper: it denied that I already belonged, as part of the variation among the passengers.
The word “Already” makes all the difference in the world. I'm not a special case passenger. I'm a passenger. Full stop.
This changes the vantage point regarding the solution needed. If I already belong as a passenger, then the concept of a "wheelchair section" becomes as absurd as having a "tall people section" or a "people wearing glasses section." These subcategories collapse once you recognise the ontological truth.
Once you see it from "Already," every "special accommodation" reveals itself as an example where design assumed you didn't belong from the start.
Conclusion
We need to keep interrogating our underlying ontological assumptions regarding access and belonging, something Tanya Titchkosky pushes us to do when she writes: “Every single instance of life can be regarded as tied to access – that is, to do anything is to have some form of access.“ She points to the conditionality surrounding access, and asks: “When? Not yet” [2].
To me, it has been helpful to use the contrast between “I Already Belong” and “Not Yet” when probing into a situation, asking questions like: Does this [design] say "You already belong", or does it say "Do you want access" or “Here is your access”?
Design does not grant belonging. It only reveals whether it was ever assumed.
Your Turn
Do you have any examples where the distinction between “Not Yet” vs. “Already” could be helpful to you, and perhaps even some photos?
Thank you for commenting and sharing! Let’s keep this discussion going 😊
Notes and References
This piece builds on our research into situation-based categorisation and nonclusive design.
Do you want to use the photos or illustrations in a publication, presentation, or video? Please go ahead 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
- 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.
- Titchkosky, T. (2011). The question of access: Disability, space, meaning. University of Toronto Press.
