About the nature of design in universal design.

Abstract

Studies suggest that the concept of universal design (UD) is not widely accepted and that some of its ideas are received rather sceptically. This article confronts the concept of UD with prevailing notions and practices of design. It examines how UD can be situated relative to design in general, and explores whether elements in the nature of design can help us explain this scepticism. The article confronts writings about how design is understood with the concept and ideas of UD. This confrontation is substantiated with examples from studies of design processes in architectural design practice. The confrontation highlights the ambiguity of how UD is framed and presented, ranging from an attitude over something utopian to a normative design domain. (1) Besides UD other attitudes are thinkable that address the diversity in human abilities and conditions. (2) The impossibility to really design for everyone may be inherent to design rather than characteristic of UD. (3) Even if UD as a normative design domain were a top priority, the question remains how to assess whether a design is universally usable given the nature of design (problems), and prevailing design practices. Implications for Rehabilitation Understanding disability as originating in the interaction between features of an individual's body and features of his/her environment, as universal design does, implies that rehabilitation specialists need to consider the context in which a person lives. Besides striving for independence, self-reliance and individualism, rehabilitation specialists may consider other attitudes to address the diversity in human abilities and conditions. Designers do not have direct access to the perspective of the people they design for. Assessing whether a design is universally accessible may benefit from expertise of rehabilitation specialists.