Hi Julienne

Was just about to send you my comments added to David's amendments when I
read your comments.

I take your point about an easy checklist for surveys which we also use
when we are not doing full access audits but surveys for tourist
information etc. However, I would consider David's points and ours to be
important for full audits of public premises and in helping providers to
meet the requirements of the DDA, where it is not possible to identify
users' preferences, particularly if the audits are part of an action
planning process and adaptations would follow.

If standards are compromised too much for paper space, then service
providers and designers will continue to avoid meeting the requirements of
the DDA and our (disabled people's) need for better access. I am concerned
that the CAE have gone down this route as they are supposed to be
demonstrating best practice.

I haven't included specifications for adult changing facilities (often
known horrendously as "hygiene rooms") but we are currently devising plans
and specifications with Manchester City Council who are about to provide
them in some public buildings as a result of recent requests. I can send
details to those interested. We have already provided specifications for
baby changing areas in our Design for Access 2 manual, which was co-written
with Manchester City Council and is available online on their website or
from a link from ours.

We also have a set of images including examples of good and bad practice in
toilets and showers on our website, with additional images to add eventually!

http://www.mdpag.org.uk/pubs.htm

I hope you will find our comments helpful.

best wishes

Flick

At 10:35 09/05/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear David Croft and Accessibuilt members,
>
>David, thank you for taking the time to annotate the Toilet Audit
>Tool. Your notes are extremely helpful, but they do illustrate the
>difficulty of carrying out research in this area.
>
>Perhaps we should have made it clearer in our original communication
>that the tool is wholly based on the ADM, which is why we have
>restricted the dimensions cited in the tool to the most important of
>those given in the actual document, rather than adding to those
>recommendations additional standards based on what we already know to
>be limitations on access by, say, people with a baby buggy or in a
>powered wheelchair.
>
>Nor did we wish to add information based on what we know of users'
>own preferences in respect of design, to this particular tool. We are
>gathering information on users' requirements in a separate exercise,
>through the use of personas and through a separately designed user
>needs form. In this, we are eliciting users' preferred items of
>equipment and preferred dimensions. Needless to say, they vary
>widely. For example, we have already run focus groups with users in
>association with Pamis, who have been advising us about the project,
>but thank you for mentioning them as maybe not everyone on the
>network is aware of the sterling work they do. Again, what our
>Advisory Group tells us will be helpful, is to know the actual
>proportions of people who regularly use the different items of
>equipment provided, such as the drop down rail, or the vertical grab
>rails.
>
>Once we have gathered the information on what is provided and what
>the users want, in separate exercises, we will then compare the data.
>
>So far as the Audit Tool itself is concerned, we have already audited
>60 premises owned or managed by private providers in Clerkenwell
>ourselves, and so we already know that most if not all of the
>premises we looked at ourselves have major design faults. What we are
>now trying to establish is which aspects of the recommendations in
>ADM are complied with by more or most providers, and which are
>observed the the least. This is really what the tool is for as a
>research instrument, but when we have fine tuned it, it should
>provide a checklist for providers to use on their own premises to
>check their own facilities. We are gathering our own material on
>this, but we hope to widen the resources at our disposal by gathering
>information from other networks of people with an interest in these
>issues, which is why we asked for Accessibuilt's help.
>
>The notes you have added to the basic tool illustrate another
>dilemma. We needed a tool that could be administered quickly, without
>too much fuss, by someone with minimal training, otherwise it will
>not be used. This is particularly true of the providers of accessible
>toilets, who would welcome something simple that they can use to
>check their own premises, but who will shy away from something that
>gives the impression of being too complicated and onerous. We have
>therefore taken the advice of the Centre for Accesible Environments
>on this and distilled the tool onto 2 sides of A4. This has meant
>that some of the recommendations have not been given in full, or
>shorthanded in qualitative terms like 'robust' or 'easy to use',  and
>others have not been mentioned at all. Your fuller version is 7 pages
>long. We also had long and detailed discussions with our Advisory
>Group, on how much detail to include and the consensus from this
>group was that we had got it about right.
>
>Howver, please be assured that I'll be going through your
>recommendations in detail. I have spotted some things that we
>definitely need to add, and other comments that are more akin to
>recommendations to extend the ADM, that will feed into the user needs
>side of the equation. Yet other comments will feed into the text that
>will accompany any end product from the project, which still has
>about 18 months to run. We are talking to in excess of 40 different
>user groups at present, including faith based communities and
>families with children at various ages, as well as older people and
>people with a very wide range of health concerns. For us to adjust
>the guidance in the ADM is therefore premature. I'll have to contain
>my impatience until we have finished the research and can support our
>final recommendations with the evidence provided by all our end-users
>and by everyone who has inspected premises as part of the study.
>
>Can I finish by saying that everyting that David has mentioned will
>be used in the study in some way, so if other people have information
>or recommendations that they feel we should know about, please
>contact us as everything adds to the weight of evidence that our
>current guidelines are inadequate and serve to exclude lots of people
>from using the public realm.
>
>Best Regards, Julienne
>--
>
>----------End of Message----------
>
>Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the
>distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:
>
>http://www.inclusive-design.it
>
>Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html

Chair, MDPAG (Manchester Disabled People's Access Group)
Office: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.mdpag.org.uk
Personal: [log in to unmask]

----------End of Message----------

Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:

http://www.inclusive-design.it

Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html